seabed landscapes of the baltic sea: geological...

Academic Dissertation

Geological Survey of Finland

Geological Survey of Finland

gtkfi

2017

ISBN 978-952-217-387-4 (pdf version without articles)ISBN 978-952-217-386-7 (paperback)

Seabed landscapes of the Baltic Sea Geological characterization of the seabed environment with spatial analysis techniques Anu Kaskela

Seabed landscapes of the Baltic Sea Geological characterization of the seabed environm

ent with spatial analysis techniques bull Anu Kaskela

Geological Survey of FinlandEspoo 2017

Seabed landscapes of the Baltic Sea

Geological characterization of the seabed environment with spatial analysis techniques

by

Anu KaskelaMarine Geology

Geological Survey of FinlandPO Box 96

FI-02151 Espoo Finland

ACADEMIC DISSERTATIONDepartment of Geosciences and Geography University of Helsinki

To be presented with the permission of the Faculty of Science of the University of Helsinki for public examination in in Aud XV

Main building of the University of Helsinki (Unioninkatu 34) on November 3rd 2017 at 12 noon

Unless otherwise indicated the figures have been prepared by the author of the publication

SupervisorsResearch Professor Aarno KotilainenMarine GeologyGeological Survey of FinlandEspoo Finland

Professor Veli-Pekka SalonenDepartment of Geosciences and GeographyUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinki Finland

Pre-examinersProfessor Risto KalliolaDepartment of Geography and Geology University of TurkuTurku Finland

Professor and Director Larry MayerSchool of Marine Science and Ocean EngineeringCenter for Coastal and Ocean MappingNOAAUNH Joint Hydrographic CenterUniversity of New HampshireDurham New Hampshire USA

OpponentProfessor Emeritus H Gary Greene Marine Geology and Head Center for Habitat Studies San Jose State UniversityMoss Landing Marine Laboratories (MLML)Moss Landing California USA

Front cover Combined topographic-bathymetric model of the Baltic Sea basin and surrounding land areas Model has been modified from Copernicus data and information funded by the European Union ndash EU-DEM layers (version 10) and EMODnet Bathymetry Consortium 2016 Modified by Anu Kaskela and Harri Kutvonen GTK

Kaskela A 2017 Seabed landscapes of the Baltic Sea Geological char-acterization of the seabed environment with spatial analysis techniques Geological Survey of Finland Espoo 41 pages and 2 figures with original articles (IndashIV)

ABSTRACT

Marine ecosystems provide a wide range of ecosystem services to human society including supporting regulating cultural and provisioning ser-vices The concept of Blue Growth even considers marine areas as potential drivers of the economy However despite the long tradition of ocean explo-ration the realization of Blue Growth and effective marine spatial planning often suffer from incomplete and scattered marine data over large areas

This dissertation presents a GIS-based approach to analyzing and char-acterizing the geologic seabed environment of the Baltic Sea It combines scattered geospatial data to produce spatial representations of the Baltic Sea in terms of the seabed geomorphic features marine landscapes and geodiversity The broad scales of the analyses reflect the scale of the availa-ble datasets and the needs of transnational ecosystem-based management

Spatial analysis techniques enabled the identification of coherent geomor-phic features and quantification of geodiversity patterns over the entire Baltic Sea region within the limits of the input data resolution Based on the results the overall geological landscape of the Baltic Sea is character-ized by plains and basins Other geomorphic features such as elevations and valleys are characteristic of certain sub-regions The seabed geodiver-sity generally increases from south to north and from the open sea to areas with a high shore density The crystalline bedrock areas provide more di-verse seabed environments than the sedimentary rock areas Archipelagos in particular stand out as seabed areas with high geodiversity The results underline the significance of the ongoing processes (erosion sediment transport and accumulation) the basement rock type past glaciations and certain geological events during the last deglaciation in shaping the seabed environment of the Baltic Sea

The dissertation presents new evidence that the geodiversity of the seafloor influences the distribution of the zoobenthic assemblages of the eastern Gulf of Finland It is suggested that the high geodiversity and archipelago gradient could directly influence benthic assemblages and biodiversity by providing a multitude of habitats and indirectly by channeling water move-ment Additionally the potential key habitats rocky reefs were mapped with good accuracy in seabed areas with limited data and the features were also recognized to have ecological value These spatial datasets provide val-uable background material for more detailed studies on the rocky reefs and the archipelago areas as well as for monitoring their status

The study provides spatial information on the seabed characteristics of the Baltic Sea for scientists marine spatial planners and managers The re-sults emphasize that geodiversity should be acknowledged in the ecosys-tem-based management of marine areas because it has intrinsic value it provides several abiotic ecosystem services and it is associated with the biodiversity and long-term conservation of the marine environment

Keywords marine geology geodiversity spatial analysis geomorphology seabed marine landscape Baltic Sea

Anu KaskelaGeological Survey of FinlandPO Box 96 FI-02151 Espoo Finland

E-mail anukaskelagtkfi

ISBN 978-952-217-386-7 (paperback)ISBN 978-952-217-387-4 (pdf version without articles)

Layout Elvi Turtiainen OyPrinting house Loumlnnberg Print amp Promo Finland

CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS 6

LIST OF ORIGINAL PUBLICATIONS 7

THE AUTHORrsquoS CONTRIBUTIONS 7

1 INTRODUCTION 8 11 Blue Growth 8 12 Ecosystem-based management of marine areas 9 13 Marine areas are the great unknown 9

131 Data gaps 9132 Scattered unharmonious data 10

14 Scale 10 15 Geological knowledge in characterizing seabed ecosystems 11

151 Seabed substrates and geomorphic features 11152 Marine landscapes 12153 Geodiversity 13

16 Research objectives and hypothesis 14

2 STUDY AREA 14 21 Baltic Sea 14 22 Eastern Gulf of Finland 16 23 Archipelago Sea 16

3 MATERIAL AND METHODS 17 31 Spatial scale 17 32 Datasets 17

321 Seabed substrate data 17322 Bathymetry 18

33 Spatial analysis techniques 18331 Seabed structures and topographical characteristics 18332 Determining Marine Landscapes 19333 Geodiversity 20

4 RESULTS 20

5 DISCUSSION 22 51 Validity of spatial analysis techniques 22 52 Datasets 23 53 Seabed landscape characteristics of the Baltic Sea 24

531 Archipelagos 26 54 Associations between geological characteristics and benthic assemblages 28 55 Results in the context of ESBM and other uses 28

6 CONCLUSIONS 30

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 31

TERMINOLOGY 32

REFERENCES 35

ORIGINAL PUBLICATIONS

6

Geological Survey of FinlandAnu Kaskela

ABBREVIATIONS

BPI Bathymetric position index

BTM Benthic terrain modeler

EMODnet European Marine Observation and Data Network

ESBM Ecosystem-based management

GIA Glacial isostatic adjustment

GIS Geographic information system

ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea

LGM Last Glacial Maximum

LiDAR Light detection and ranging

MBES Multibeam echosounder

MPA Marine protected area

MSP Marine spatial planning

SSS Side scan sonar

7

Seabed landscapes of the Baltic Sea Geological characterization of the seabed environment with spatial analysis techniques

LIST OF ORIGINAL PUBLICATIONS

This dissertation is based on the material and results originally presented in the following pa-pers which are referred to in the text by their Roman numerals The original articles I-IV have been reprinted with the kind permission of the copyright holder Elsevier Ltd

I Kaskela A M Kotilainen A T Al-Hamdani Z Leth J amp Reker J 2012 Seabed geomor-phic features in a glaciated shelf of the Bal-tic Sea Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 100 150ndash161 ISSN 0272-7714 httpdxdoiorg101016jecss201201008

II Kaskela A M Rousi H Ronkainen M Or-lova M Babin A Gogoberidze G Kostamo K Kotilainen A T Neevin I Ryabchuk D Sergeev A amp Zhamoida V 2017 Linkages between benthic assemblages and physical environmental factors The role of geodiver-

sity in Eastern Gulf of Finland ecosystems Continental Shelf Research 142 1-13 ISSN 0278-4343 httpsdoiorg101016jcsr201705013

III Kaskela A M amp Kotilainen AT 2017 Seabed geodiversity in a glaciated shelf area the Bal-tic Sea Geomorphology 295 419-435 ISSN 0169-555X httpdxdoiorg101016jgeo-morph201707014

IV Rinne H Kaskela A Downie A-L Tolva-nen H von Numers M amp Mattila J 2014 Predicting the occurrence of rocky reefs in a heterogeneous archipelago area with limited data Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 138 90-100 ISSN 0272-7714 httpdxdoiorg101016jecss201312025

THE AUTHORrsquoS CONTRIBUTIONS

I A Kaskela had the main responsibility for Paper I with the support of Prof A Kotilai-nen A Kaskela planned the study with the co-authors participated in compiling and harmonizing the background data and mo-deled the seabed structures A Kaskela wro-te the paper and prepared the figures which were commented on by the co-authors

II A Kaskela designed the study for Paper II with the co-authors She conducted the fieldwork data production harmonization and analysis together with the co-authors Statistical ana-lyses were performed by H Rousi M Orlova and M Ronkainen Paper II was jointly writ-ten by A Kaskela and H Rousi Kaskela being

responsible for the geological part and Rousi for the biological part and the manuscript was commented on by the co-authors

III A Kaskela had the main responsibility for planning and carrying out the study for Pa-per III A Kaskela wrote the manuscript with contributions from A Kotilainen

IV A Kaskela had the main responsibility for the processing of geological data for Paper IV Kaskela performed the seabed structure ana-lysis and contributed to writing and illustra-ting the paper Paper IV is also a part of the PhD dissertation of H Rinne

8


1 INTRODUCTION

The Blue Marble is an iconic picture of Earth taken in 1972 by a crew member of the Apollo 17 spacecraft The picture reveals Earth as dif-ferent from other planets It shows a planet with a complex system of air water and land (Wuebbles 2012) Earth is the only planet known to support life The blue expanse of the oceans makes Earth special If Earth had orbited closer to the Sun water would had evaporated and if any further away water would had frozen over the course of geologic time (eg Hart 1978 1979 Kasting et al 1993) The existence of liquid wa-ter is often considered as a prerequisite for the origin of life

Throughout the geological history of Earth the oceans have changed their size and shape The current state with five oceans (the Arctic Atlantic Pacific Indian and Southern Ocean) dates back about 175 million years to the Juras-sic period Today more than 70 of Earthrsquos ter-rain is overlain by seawater 60 of the Northern and 80 of the Southern Hemisphere In the fu-ture it is likely that the oceans will cover even larger areas Global sea level has reportedly risen throughout the 20th century On the basis of the current climate change scenarios sea level is es-timated to rise due to the thermal expansion of the water and melting of the ice sheets by about

05ndash1 m by 2100 (Church et al 2013) At present marine areas and especially the coastal sys-tems deliver several ecosystem services whose economic value has been estimated to amount to more than half of the average global value of annual ecosystem services (Costanza et al 1997) However present knowledge of the marine en-vironment is often insufficient for sustainable management We lack detailed information on seafloor features and for example only about 10ndash15 of the seafloor has actually been sur-veyed with oceanographic vessels at 15ndash2 min resolution (Wessel amp Chandler 2011) This dissertation presents an integrated ap-proach to analyzing and characterizing the sea-bed environment with spatial analysis by com-bining geological environmental and ecological data Part of this data has been collected and harmonized from already existing sources Sea-bed substrates geomorphological features and geodiversity provide several abiotic ecosystem services and have intrinsic value Below the reasons underlying the ecosystem-based ap-proach to maritime spatial planning are briefly discussed a few (data) related problems are in-troduced and an overview of how marine geo-logical characteristics contribute to maintaining a healthy marine ecosystem is provided

11 Blue Growth

Blue Growth or the Blue Economy is a recent concept adopted by policy makers (eg Europe-an Commission 2012 UNCSIDS 2014) The con-cept builds on welfare and resources that soci-ety can potentially gain from marine areas For instance the European Commission (2014) has regarded marine areas as drivers for the Euro-pean economy because they have considerable potential for innovation jobs and growth Blue Growth includes aquaculture seabed mining coastal tourism marine energy and marine bio-technology

While interest in using marine resources is growing all marine areas are already affected by human influence (Halpern et al 2008) A large proportion of the ocean ecosystem is strongly influenced by multiple drivers and human im-pacts have increased in recent years (Halpern et al 2008 2015) The anthropogenic influence on marine ecosystems derives for example from overfishing modification of seabed habitats land-based pollution climate change invasive species and transport accidents such as oil spills (eg de Groot 1984 Jackson et al 2001 Bax et

9


al 2003 Halpern et al 2008 Molnar et al 2008 Doney et al 2012 Coughlan et al 2015 Helle et al 2016) Continental shelves are among the marine areas with the highest predicted cumu-lative human impact although they cover less than 10 of marine environments (Halpern et al 2008) Shallow coastal waters where sunlight is able to penetrate and rivers transport nutrients are among the richest in marine life in terms of their biomass (Wei et al 2010) Furthermore a large proportion of the human population eg

almost half of Europeans lives in coastal areas with a marine influence (Douvere 2008) Ac-cording to Gray (1997) the best way to conserve marine diversity is to conserve habitat and land-scape diversity in coastal areas

In order to maintain and potentially amend marine ecosystems Blue Growth includes the concept of sustainable development which aims at meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs (WCED 1987)

12 Ecosystem-based management of marine areas

How are we able to acquire further economic growth from marine areas and simultaneously support sustainable development Marine spa-tial planning (MSP) seeks to address this ques-tion MSP is a public process of analyzing and allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of human activities in marine areas to achieve ecological economic and social objectives that are usually specified through a political process (Ehler amp Douvere 2009) It aims to take into account future interests as well as the current situation

The environmental problems mentioned in the previous chapter partly result from the frag-mentation of ocean governance systems In re-cent years marine policy has shifted from the management of individual sectoral activities towards ecosystem-based management (ESBM) (Crowder amp Norse 2008) ESBM is as an interdis-ciplinary approach to MSP which balances eco-logical social and governance principles at ap-propriate temporal and spatial scales in a distinct geographical area to achieve the sustainable use

of the resources (Long et al 2015) It emphasizes spaces instead of (single) species and focuses on conserving the ecosystem structure function-ing and key processes The process has devel-oped from the conservation efforts of the Great Barrier Reef more than 30 years ago into a global initiative which is implemented in several sea areas from Europe and America to Asia (eg Day 2002 Li 2006 European Parliament 2008)

To be able to implement ESBM one should know the marine ecosystem in question For instance the spatial zonation of activities and the establishment of interconnected networks of marine protected areas (MPAs) call for the inclusion of a spatial element in management (eg Rinne 2014) In many cases the realiza-tion of Blue Growth and ESBM suffer from in-complete and scattered marine data although there has been progress in data compilation in recent years (eg Ruckelshaus et al 2008 Euro-pean Commission 2014 Shucksmith et al 2014 Zaucha 2014 Ministry for the Environment and Statistics New Zealand 2016)

13 Marine areas are the great unknown

Ecosystems comprise both abiotic and biotic environments and their interactions As a con-sequence ESBM requires data from various per-spectives including the ecosystem as well as the economy and society (Collie et al 2013) Marine environmental data of this type are often incon-sistent in terms of both their spatial coverage and collection methodologies

131 Data gaps

Full-coverage spatial data on the seabed are challenging and costly to obtain and only 5ndash10

of the worldrsquos seafloor has consequently been mapped with the equivalent resolution to simi-lar studies on land (Wright amp Heyman 2008 and references therein) For example the General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans GEBCO_2014 covers the Earth with a 30 arc sec grid but only ~18 of the grid cells over the oceans are con-strained by measured data or preprepared grids that may contain some interpolated values (Weatherall et al 2015) Moreover about 60 of the seafloor has been mapped at a bin size of 05deg x 05deg and the 50 mark was reached in 1979 (Wessel amp Chandler 2011) The increase in explo-

10


ration coverage of new seafloor areas has slowed down since then Apparently there was a transi-tion to more purpose-driven investigation from the general exploration in the 1970s which led to a decrease in data acquisition for previously unexplored areas (Wessel amp Chandler 2011) A recent example of this is that the search for the missing Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 rep-resents the largest continuous high-resolution acoustic mapping effort for the Indian Ocean (Picard et al 2016)

It has been estimated that it would take about 900 ship years to obtain complete multibeam coverage of the worldrsquos oceans (Weatherall et al 2015) Satellites also provide data eg gravity models on marine areas but their resolution is poorer than with sonars and the latest gravity model of the seafloor enables sea-floor features to be resolved to about 6 kilometers (Sandwell et al 2014 Witze 2014) The turbid near-shore areas are also problematic to survey as they are too shallow for an efficient bathymetric survey but too deep for a land-based survey and thus often appear as unmapped patches called ldquowhite ribbonrdquo zones (eg Kotilainen amp Kaskela 2017)

Nevertheless despite the above-mentioned challenges the physical environmental param-eters are generally easier to survey across wide areas than to obtain a full coverage set of eco-logical samples (Post 2008 Harris 2012) There are large gaps in the marine species record and it has even been argued that it is impossible to map the true species biodiversity of the oceans (Harris amp Baker 2012) The ecological data cov-erage is often low and irregular and thus inap-propriate for broad-scale MSP efforts (Tulloch et al 2013 Collie et al 2013 Stamoulis amp Dele-vaux 2015) Technological advances in statistical analysis and geographical information systems

(GIS) have created new approaches to integrate inconsistent geological and biological data and to map and model the marine environment For instance the potential coverage of a habitat can be derived from the association between envi-ronmental data and biological samples (see eg review by Brown et al 2011)

132 Scattered unharmonious data

In addition to actual data gaps marine data sets can be difficult to obtain because they are scat-tered around different organizations Moreover they might not be thematically solid In many cases data on the European seabed substrate are produced on the basis of national standards and the grain-size classification schemes and data interpretation methods vary between countries for example (EMODnet Geology 2016) Besides the existing marine data are not necessarily at an adequate scale for specific MSP purposes This is highlighted by a recent estimate that to date approximately 60 of the seabed sub-strates of the European seas have been mapped at the scale of 11 000 000 and 20 at the scale of 1250 000 or in more detail (EMODnet Geology 2016) The respective figures for the Baltic Sea are 100 and 33

Several transnational efforts have been estab-lished to overcome data-sharing problems dur-ing recent years (eg Al-Hamdani et al 2007 Meiner 2010 2013 Stevenson 2012 EMODnet Geology 2016) These projects have aimed to combine and harmonize existing datasets or data patches into continuous basin-wide data products Papers IndashIII provided examples of how such harmonized multisource datasets have been used to study seafloor characteristics over broad transnational marine areas

14 Scale

ESBM should acknowledge the thematic scale along with the spatial scale (Cogan et al 2009) Ecosystems occur at various scales from ocean environments to certain sea basins and from specific habitats such as seamounts to seafloors with complex micro-topography (Crowder amp Norse 2008) The scale should enable the most significant drivers and threats to the ecosystem in question to be explained (Levin et al 2009) ESBM strategies usually take the scale into ac-

count by adopting a hierarchical approach to de-fine the planning units (eg Greene et al 1999 Roff amp Taylor 2000 Roff et al 2003 Connor et al 2004 Madden amp Grossman 2007 Spalding et al 2007 HELCOM 2013a)

In this dissertation the spatial scale is used in connection with the resolution and extent of the study broad-scale referring to large areas with low-resolution data and fine scale (or detailed scale) to local studies with high-resolution data

11


Additionally seabed characteristics have been described based on an approach that focuses on geomorphology and geomorphic features as mappable habitats (Greene et al 1999 Harris amp Baker 2012) megahabitats present large geo-morphic seabed features 1ndash10 km in size nested within major physiographic provinces meso-habitats are geomorphic features from tens of meters to 1 km in size and include glacial mo-raines gas-escape pock marks mass wasting deposits and bedrock outcrops macrohabitats

are 1ndash10 m in size and include seafloor materi-als such as boulders and sediment waves micro-habitats are centimeters or less in size such as sediment grains or small cracks and crevices in a solid (rock) substrate The mega-mesohabitat-scale studies of Papers I and III enabled a com-parison between Baltic sub basinsregions and the more detailed meso-macrohabitat-scale studies presented in Papers II and IV enabled the detection of specific seafloor features and land-scapes at the community level

15 Geological knowledge in characterizing seabed ecosystems

151 Seabed substrates and geomorphic features

Seabed surface substrates are one of the primary parameters in defining benthic habitats of the Baltic Sea along with bottom topography bi-otic features hydrography wave exposure and spatiotemporal variability (Snickars et al 2014) Generally classification schemes for marine en-vironment recognize hard soft and mixed sub-strates as being key habitat-determining factors (eg Davies et al 2004 Beaman amp Harris 2007 Greene et al 2007 Last et al 2010) A coarse substrate is often inhabited by suspension feed-ers such as mollusks and deposit feeders inhabit muddy basins (Beaman amp Harris 2007 Post et al 2011 Rousi et al 2011) Sheltered sedimentation basins might be species-poor habitats as they often suffer from anoxia due to limited water ex-change (Laine 2003 Laine et al 2007)

Certain geomorphic features have been in-cluded in marine classification schemes be-cause they play a part in defining the distribu-tion of the benthic biota and biodiversity both in deep sea and shelf environments (eg Greene et al 2007 Harris et al 2008 Madden et al 2009 Mortensen et al 2009a Last et al 2010 Buhl-Mortensen et al 2012 Harris amp Baker 2012) Sea-bed geomorphology takes into account the form and hardness of the seabed (Harris 2012) Sea-bed geomorphic features vary in size and include features such as canyons ridges sandbanks ba-sins moraines and fjords For example the spa-tial variability of benthic communities of East Antarctica is primarily influenced by changes in broad-scale seabed morphology which partly controls sedimentation patterns current flow and the supply of organic matter among oth-

ers (Post et al 2011) The commercially valuable adult rockfish has also been shown to prefer ele-vated and fractured tectonic and glacial habitats to smoothed bedrock (Greene et al 2011) The el-evated and rugged features impact current flow by causing turbulence which concentrates nu-trients and thus provides the potential for food Rough terrains with angular boulders and spaces between them offer refugia and good habitats However a preference for physically homoge-neous habitats has been noted in temperate sea-grass fish assemblages (Staveley et al 2016)

The Habitats and Birds directives (Council Di-rective 9243EEC and Directive 2009147EC respectively) of the European Union include the protection of marine habitats and species The directives define the formation of an ecological network of protected sites encompassing the ter-restrial and marine habitats occurring in Europe (Natura 2000 network) Annex I of the Habitats Directive lists habitats important to biodiversity protection and defines some habitats based on geomorphological criteria and assigns biodi-versity values accordingly (European Commis-sion 2013) For example according to the An-nex I habitat description reefs are formations of hard compact biogenic or geogenic substrata on solid and soft bottoms which arise from the sea floor in the sublittoral and littoral zone and they may support a zonation of benthic communities (European Commission 2013) A key species on the rocky reefs of the Baltic Sea is the perennial brown alga Fucus vesiculosus L which serves as an important food source for many invertebrates (Engkvist et al 2000 Wikstroumlm amp Kautsky 2007) and may provide a refuge for invertebrate and fish species (eg Kautsky et al 1992) Paper IV

12


of this dissertation focuses on the reefs formed by hard substrata

152 Marine landscapes

The marine landscape (also referred to as lsquosea-scapersquo or lsquobenthoscapersquo) approach is one tool that can contribute to marine management Marine landscapes are combinations of ecologi-cally determined hydrographic bathymetric and geological datasets that characterize po-tential broad habitat distribution patterns If the required abiotic datasets exist the approach provides a cost-effective method for character-izing seafloor conditions and potential habitats on a broad scale The approach informs conser-vation efforts that seek to optimize biodiversity (rather than a particular species) in a given area The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) specifies that the term lsquomarine landscapersquo is similar to the term lsquohabitatrsquo in that it refers to an area of integrated landforms and biota but covers a broader spatial area Marine landscapes were first outlined in Canada (Roff amp Taylor 2000) and have since been identified in several marine areas (Connor et al 2006 Al-Hamdani et al 2007 Whiteway et al 2007 Har-ris amp Whiteway 2009 Verfaillie et al 2009 Gal-parsoro et al 2010 Brown et al 2012)

Marine landscapes have been characterized by top-down approaches that include a hierarchi-cal classification of hydrological and geological parameters (eg Roff amp Taylor 2000 Connor et al 2006 Al-Hamdani et al 2007) or by bottom-up approaches that include a multivariate sta-tistical analysis of environmental samples (eg Verfaillie et al 2009 Huang et al 2011) The top-down approach is typically used to establish a general understanding of a broad area while the bottom-up approach provides more detailed characterization of different component spaces (Shumchenia amp King 2010 LaFrance et al 2014) The top-down approach was implemented in Paper I and bottom-up in Paper II

Some marine landscape approaches and the ones presented in Papers I and II have empha-sized physical elements of the seabed including geomorphology seabed heterogeneity and tex-ture in broad-scale habitat mapping (eg Con-nor et al 2006 Al-Hamdani et al 2007 Shaw et al 2014) The landscape consists of physical elements landforms such as hills and basins

as well as living elements including flora and fauna The physical landscape is a result of in-ternal processes such as tectonics and external processes including weathering and erosion These marine landscape approaches are useful for identifying broad seafloor features such as canyons and rocky reefs (Brown et al 2011) They also aim to present a holistic view of the sea-floor and to incorporate an understanding of the past and ongoing geological processes that have shaped the seafloor (Shaw et al 2014)

The marine landscape approaches presented in Papers I and II aimed at characterizing sea-bed conditions Paper I focused more on seabed geomorphic features which were considered as adding a geomorphological link to the marine landscape approach Paper II developed the ma-rine landscape approach by analyzing the rela-tionships between abiotic variables and benthic assemblages Thus the benthos was included in the analyses and the marine landscapes derived in Paper II were called benthic marine landscapes Additionally the term lsquoseabed landscapersquo has been used in this thesis This refers to the physi-cal landscape of the seabed and includes geomor-phic features substrates and geodiversity

153 Geodiversity

Besides constituting the physical framework for biodiversity abiotic nature provides abiotic eco-system services and has an ecosystem value of its own (Gray et al 2013) The term lsquogeodiver-sityrsquo has been used in parallel with biodiversity to promote a more integrated management of nature (a shift from the traditional biocentric focus) and to emphasize that nature consists of both biotic and abiotic components (Gray 2005) Geodiversity takes into account the natural range of geological geomorphological and soil features as well as their assemblages relation-ships properties interpretations and systems (Gray 2004)

Geodiversity provides resources for economic development tourism recreation and outdoor activities and knowledge that aids society to adapt to climate change and to mitigate its con-sequences through improved understanding of natural processes among others (Gordon et al 2012) Knowledge of the distribution of geodi-versity supports spatial planning the sustain-able use of resources and the defining of priority

13


areas for conservation (Pellitero et al 2011 Gray et al 2013 Melelli 2014) The seafloor is a tar-get of several anthropogenic activities including aggregate extraction trawling and marine con-struction (eg pipelines and plants for marine energy) and the resulting impacts on the integ-rity of the features may vary depending on the character and vulnerability of the feature as well as the nature of the activity (Burek et al 2013)

Geoconservation which is the conservation of geological and geomorphological features was earlier largely ignored in the marine environ-ment but awareness of the value of submarine geodiversity has grown in recent years (Burek et al 2013) Examples include the Kvarken ar-chipelago which is included in UNESCOrsquos list of World Heritage sites due to its geological value It is an exemplary area with a changing land-scape where an active geoprocess isostatic land uplift leads to a continuous succession of moraines from the seafloor to land (Breilin et al 2004 2005 Reijonen 2004 Kotilainen et al 2012 Kotilainen amp Kaskela 2017)

Geodiversity might also serve as a proxy for biodiversity Abiotic heterogeneity has been noted to reflect the abundance of varying habi-tats spatial variation in resources and thus bio-diversity (eg Burnett et al 1998 Nichols et al 1998 Dufour et al 2006 Parks amp Mulligan 2010 Hjort et al 2012 Stein et al 2014) It has even been speculated that threatened species rich-

ness could be associated with high geodiversity values (Tukiainen et al 2016)

The distribution of geodiversity is often ana-lyzed with GIS methods For example geodiver-sity can be assessed by summing the number of different elements that constitute geodiversity (Hjort amp Luoto 2010 Pereira et al 2013 Silva et al 2015) or by producing an overlay analysis of categorical geological morphoclimatic and morphometric data which can be further used to calculate diversity indices typical of land-scape studies (eg Shannon and Simpson di-versity) (Benito-Calvo et al 2009 Argyriou et al 2016) Some studies have applied a geodiver-sity index that takes into account geomorphol-ogy hydrology and soils as well as roughness (Serrano amp Ruiz-Flantildeo 2007 Serrano et al 2009 Hjort amp Luoto 2010 Pellitero et al 2011 Melelli 2014 Pellitero et al 2015 Manosso amp de Noacutebrega 2016) Additionally the physical complexity of the seabed has been described with parameters such as the slope rugosity and roughness (Ko-stylev et al 2005 McArthur et al 2010 LaFrance et al 2014) A high geodiversity reflects a de-formed terrain with structural and lithological complexity deeply incised regions eroded re-liefs and heterogeneous abiotic conditions in-cluding both erosion and accumulation among others (Benito-Calvo et al 2009 Hjort amp Luoto 2010 Pellitero et al 2015 Manosso amp de Noacutebrega 2016) during geological time

16 Research objectives and hypothesis

This dissertation study aimed to develop spatial models and visual representations of the physi-cal seabed environment for scientists marine spatial planners and managers and to advance ecosystem-based planning of the Baltic Sea The intention of the study was to develop an over-view of the geological features of the seabed and landscape of the area with spatial analysis tech-niques and to investigate the underlying reasons for the characteristics

The specific objectives of the research werebull To define the physical environment of Baltic

Sea seabed by identifying geomorphic fea-tures with spatial analysis methods (PI)

bull To analyze the relationships between abiotic characteristics and benthic assemblages of the

eastern Gulf of Finland taking into account the geological heterogeneity of the area (PII)

bull To quantify and analyze the geodiversity pat-terns of the Baltic Sea as well as to identify relationships between geodiversity and envi-ronmental factors (PIII)

bull To develop a methodology to map the occur-rences of geomorphologically defined key habitats rocky reefs in a geographically com-plex area the Archipelago Sea using the best available data (PIV)

The dissertation consists of a synopsis and four papers which are referred to by the Roman nu-merals IndashIV The methodology and data used in the papers are briefly described in section 2 and the main results in section 3

14


2 STUDY AREA

The focus of this dissertation is the seabed en-vironment of the Baltic Sea Papers I and III to-gether consider the whole basin as Paper II is

focused on the eastern Gulf of Finland and Paper IV on the Archipelago Sea (Fig 1)

21 Baltic Sea

The Baltic Sea is located on a continental shelf and it is one of the largest inland seas in the world It is a shallow sea with an average depth of about 55 m The Baltic Sea consists of several sub-regions (eg Arkona Basin Bornholm Basin Eastern

and Western Gotland Basins Gulf of Finland Ar-chipelago Sea Bothnian Sea Kvarken Bothnian Bay) each having unique geomorphic and hy-drographic characteristics (eg Fonselius 1996 Ojaveer amp Kalejs 2008 HELCOM 2013b) (Fig 1)

Fig 1 The Baltic Sea and the study areas of the papers included in the thesis The study areas are outlined with black boxes and the papers are referred to in Roman numerals Dataset origins coastline - European Environ-mental Agency 2013 sub-regions - HELCOM 2013b

15


It has limited water exchange with the North Sea through the Danish Straits and combined with a large river runoff this has resulted in brackish water conditions with a salinity gradient typical of estuaries The Baltic Sea is practically tideless and the present sea-level fluctuations of the area are mainly controlled by air pressure and winds The northern Baltic Sea freezes yearly The biotic part of the Baltic Sea ecosystem is a mixture of limnic and marine species It is a species-poor environment with benthic species richness de-creasing along the gradient of decreasing salin-ity from south to north

The bedrock of the Baltic Sea consists of Paleoproterozoic crystalline basement rocks that crop out locally along the western north-ern and northeastern coasts Sedimentary rock can be found in the southern areas of the Bal-tic Sea and the Gulf of Finland as well as in tec-tonic depressions in the central Bothnian Sea and the Bothnian Bay (Winterhalter et al 1981 Koistinen et al 2001) Several ancient tectonic lineaments and fracture zones divide the bed-rock into blocks which are also evident in the seafloor (eg Haumlrme 1961 Tuominen et al 1973 Winterhalter et al 1981) The main factors that have contributed to the geological characteris-tics of the Baltic seafloor include the pre-glacial bedrock surface glacial erosion and deposition as well as post-glacial sedimentary processes (Winterhalter et al 1981)

The Baltic Sea has undergone several glacial erosion and glacio-aquatic sedimentation peri-ods during the past 3 million years (Mangerud et al 1996 Hughes et al 2016) During the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) approximately 30ndash20 ka BP the global sea level was more than 120 m lower than today and large parts of the current shelf seafloors were either dry land or covered by ice (eg Clark amp Mix 2002 Clark et al 2009 Lambeck et al 2014) At that time the Bal-tic Sea basin was completely covered by an ice sheet and by about 10 ka BP the entire basin was deglaciated (Svendsen et al 2004 Stro-even et al 2016) The melting of the ice sheets raised the global sea level and triggered glacio-

isostatic rebound locally which is still ongoing The interactions of these controls resulted in an alternation of lacustrine and brackish-water phases of the Baltic Sea history during and af-ter the deglaciation (Baltic Ice Lake 170ndash117 ka BP Yoldia Sea 117ndash107 ka BP Ancylus Lake 107ndash98 ka BP Initial Littorina Sea 98ndash85 ka BP Litorina Sea 85ndash ka BP (Bjoumlrck 1995 An-dreacuten et al 2011 Stroeven et al 2016) Moreover the process has not ended the current climate change scenarios estimate that the sea level will rise between 05ndash1 m globally by 2100 (Church et al 2013) As noted earlier the Baltic Sea is an area of ongoing glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) with the land uplift rate varying from the -1 mmy in the south to 9 mmy in the Bothnian Bay (Ekman 1996 Kakkuri 2012) Ongoing GIA partly compensates for the local sea-level rise in most of the Baltic Sea region and the mid-range scenario of global sea-level rise equates to a relative sea-level rise of 060 m near Ham-burg and a relative sea-level fall of 035 m in the Bothnian Bay (Grinsted 2015) Consequently as the shoreline has moved through the geologi-cal history of the shelves relict coastal deposits such as boulder fields are found below water In addition glaciers have carved valleys and erod-ed and redeposited material Glacial deposits such as till and moraine occur on the seafloor of formerly glaciated areas (eg Todd amp Kostylev 2011 Shaw et al 2014 Greenwood et al 2015 Dowdeswell et al 2016)

The Baltic Sea is one of the most degraded marine areas in the world (Lotze et al 2006) It has been subjected to anthropogenic use for centuries resulting in impoverished marine resources (HELCOM 2007) In addition climate change is challenging the ecosystem Projected changes in the sea surface temperature fresh-water discharge duration of sea ice and salinity will have probable impacts on biological pro-cesses and biota (eg distribution and season-al succession) in the Baltic Sea (Viitasalo et al 2015) To survive these challenges this sensitive water area needs oversight and efficient man-agement

22 Eastern Gulf of Finland

The Gulf of Finland represents a mosaic of dif-ferent bathymetric hydrological and geological environments characterized by pronounced gra-

dients in salinity oxygen and temperature It is divided into a deeper and marine-influenced western section and a shallower eastern section

16


that includes higher proportions of freshwater (Pitkaumlnen et al 2001) The Neva River which debouches into the area at St Petersburg is the most voluminous source of freshwater discharge

into the Baltic Sea (Leppaumlranta amp Myrberg 2009) Till deposits moraines and eskers are typical seabed features of the (northern) Gulf of Finland (Haumlkkinen amp Aringker 1991)

23 Archipelago Sea

Archipelagos are a particular feature of the cen-tral and northern part of the Baltic Sea (Niemelauml et al 2015) They present very dynamic seafloor conditions where seafloor properties and pro-cesses change within very short distances The Archipelago Sea forms a transition zone with gradients from the coast to the open sea The water properties of the area are influenced by several factors the adjacent main basins of the Baltic Sea (the Gulf of Finland Gulf of Bothnia

and Baltic Proper) the fluvial discharges and the division into numerous sub-basins and the wide amplitudes of seasonal cycles (Suominen 2015) The resistant Precambrian crystalline rocks are often exposed in the outer Archipelago Sea while the innermost parts are sheltered and include softer sediments The seabed substrate distribution within the area is very patchy with rock outcrops till gravel and sand and clays of different ages

3 MATERIAL AND METHODS

All of the papers of this thesis utilized data in ge-ographical information system (GIS) format as

well as spatial analysis methods available in the ArcMap environment unless otherwise stated

31 Spatial scale

The GIS datasets represented broad spatial scales with a grid size reflecting the extent of the study area 200 m x 200 m250 m x 250 m in the Baltic-wide analysis (Papers I and III) 100 m x 100 m in the eastern Gulf of Finland (Paper II) and 25 m x 25 m in the Archipelago Sea (Paper IV)

Paper I used the term ldquosmall scalerdquo in refer-ence to the broad physical structures of the sea-floor and the other papers used the term ldquobroad scalerdquo for the similar features The term small

scale was used because cartographically it im-plies low-resolution maps (eg 11 000 000 ndash the resulting fraction is small) However it was noted that the usage of the term small scale was confusing because it is sometimes (especially in general language) used in the context of de-tailed local-scale maps Therefore the other papers used the terms broad scale for low-res-olution maps and fine scale for high-resolution maps

32 Datasets

The seabed substrate and bathymetry were the main datasets used in all papers Therefore the focus is on describing these two parameters and their derivatives Other data (eg coastline sa-linity Secchi depth bedrock deglaciation) were used according to the context of the study and the reader is referred to the original papers for further information

321 Seabed substrate data

Marine geological mapping provides spatial data on seabed substrate properties their distribu-tion and geomorphology The data usually derive

from either manual interpretation or (semi-)au-tomatic interpolation of seismo-acoustic data including single-beam echo sounder seismic profiler and sidescan sonar (SSS) and multi-beam echosounder (MBES) data and sediment samples (eg Hughes Clarke et al 1996 Coggan et al 2007 van Lancker et al 2013 Jakobsson et al 2016) The mapping strategies depend on the survey interests sea basin characteristics and national mapping traditions For example in Finland marine seabed substrate maps are produced based on seismo-acoustic surveys and seabed sampling First seismo-acoustic profiles are interpreted based on the acoustic properties

17


of the (sub-)surface material (eg porosity bulk density) Then the interpreted profiles are transformed into so-called substrate ribbons and exported into a mapping program (GIS) The distribution of the seabed substrates is manual-ly outlined from the substrate ribbons and sedi-ment samples with the help of side-scan sonar mosaics and water depth information Water depth can be measured with MBES that collects high resolution bathymetric information for example Traditionally marine geologists have produced discrete maps of seabed substrates and structures to provide data on marine re-sources geotechnical properties and geological events In this dissertation the aim was to study seabed surface substrates that also characterize benthic habitats

The studies of Papers I II and III used trans-national broad-scale substrate datasets (lt 1500 000) from several EU projects (eg BAL-ANCE TOPCONS EMODnet Geology) The gen-eral process for compiling the seabed substrate maps within these projects involved several steps First the (national) information was sourced and then harmonized according to a classification system agreed by the partners These large datasets were pooled from various sources representing different survey method-ologies and varying mapping strategies (eg Al-Hamdani et al 2007 Al-Hamdani amp Reker 2007 Kaskela et al 2014 EMODnet Geology 2016) Harmonization was implemented by the nation-al partners and they generalized the maps to the target scale again following agreed criteria Finally the responsible partner compiled the national datasetsmaps The author has partici-pated in the harmonization and compilation of these data Additionally Paper II included field-work to provide detailed surface substrate infor-mation from the key areas

Paper IV was restricted to Finnish waters Thus the seabed substrate data were derived

from the national marine geological mapping program of the Geological Survey of Finland (GTK) The Finnish marine geological mapping program produces 120 000 data with ca 60 acoustic coverage of the seafloor (the distance between acoustic-seismic survey lines is about 500 m)

322 Bathymetry

Generally bathymetry data were derived from external data sources The author participated in developing the bathymetry models used in Pa-pers I and II

The bathymetry models included in Papers I and III were compiled from existing datasets in neighboring countries Paper I utilized a dataset from Baltic co-operation and Paper III from Eu-ropean co-operation (Al-Hamdani et al 2007 Al-Hamdani amp Reker 2007 EMODnet Bathym-etry Consortium 2016)

Papers II and IV included interpolations from point datasets and contour lines among others The interpolations were produced using the Arc-Map ldquoTopo to rasterrdquo algorithm (ArcGIS Desktop 2016) The bathymetry model included in Paper II was interpolated based on multibeam data from the key areas and the larger study area was covered with depth data points coastline and contour lines available either from the National Land Survey of Finland Topographic Database or at VSEGEI (AP Karpinsky Russian Geologi-cal Research Institute) (Kaskela et al 2013) The IOW (Das Leibniz-Institut fuumlr Ostseeforschung Warnemuumlnde) Baltic Sea bathymetry model was used if no other depth point data were available (Seifert et al 2001) Paper IV used the National Land Survey of Finland Topographic Database as primary input data for the model and further offshore the IOW Baltic Sea bathymetry dataset was used

33 Spatial analysis techniques

Spatial analysis techniques were applied in iden-tifying seabed structures (Papers IndashIV) develop-ing the marine landscape approach (Papers I II) and analyzing seabed geodiversity (Papers II III) at varying scales (Fig 2)

331 Seabed structures and topographical characteristics

The science of quantitative terrain analysis which combines mathematics earth sciences engineering and computer science is called geomorphometry (Pike et al 2008) Sometimes

18


geomorphometrical applications include a dis-tinction between landforms and land surface forms (Evans 2012) Landforms are bounded segments of the land surface and can be discon-tinuous Land surface forms are continuous and include the whole globe Paper IV includes fea-tures that can be defined as landforms Paper III considers geodiversity that can be regarded as a land surface form and Papers I and II include both types

Slope aspect and curvature are first-or-der derivatives of bathymetry Roughness (the standard deviation of slope) is a second-order derivative These variables were considered to infer material properties and geomorphological hydrological and ecological processes in both terrestrial and marine areas (eg McKean amp Ro-ering 2004 Glenn et al 2006 Grohmann et al 2011 Erikstad et al 2013 Smith 2014) The con-tinuous grids of these variables were applied in Paper II to analyze linkages between the seabed environment and benthic assemblages Addi-tionally slope was included in Papers I III and IV and roughness was used in the context of geodiversity in Paper III

Here the ArcMap extension Benthic Terrain Modeler (BTM) was used in modeling broad-

scale seafloor structures from bathymetry grids (Wright et al 2012) The tool has been applied in connection with several seabed geology and hab-itat studies (eg Lundblad et al 2006 Wilson et al 2007 Diesing et al 2009 Buhl-Mortensen et al 2012 Jerosch et al 2016) BTM calculates bathymetric position index (BPI) values with a neighborhood analysis function from a bathym-etry model The BPI value denotes whether a pixel is situated either higher (positive values) or lower (negative values) than its surround-ings and the values can be further classified into distinct structures eg basins crests or narrow crests Continuous BPI grids with vary-ing neighborhoods were applied in Paper II and the derived distinct seabed structures were in-cluded in the analyses presented in Papers I III and IV In Papers I and IV the optimal BPI neigh-borhoods to identify relevant seabed structures were determined by generating several BPI grids with varying neighborhood sizes which were compared with substrate data and well-known features to find the best fit

Paper IV aimed at developing a methodology for identifying potential key habitats using the best but limited data available on bathymetry and geology Rocky reefs are defined in the An-

PI bull Basin-wide broad scale studybull Marine landscapes top-down

approachbull Identification of distinct features

PIIIbull Basin-wide broad scale studybull Geodiversity analysisbull Continuous land surface forms

PII bull Eastern Gulf of Finlandbull Regional studymesoscalebull Marine landscapes bottom-up

approachbull Emphasis on geological features amp

geodiversitybull Includes benthic data

PIV bull Archipelago Seabull Regional studymesoscalebull Identification of distinct seabed

features rocky reefsbull Includes benthic data

DistinctFeatures

Expert based(Top Down)

Statistical (Bottom Up)

P III Continuousland surfaces(egGeodiversity)

P I

P II

P IV

Bubble size = Scale and extent

Fig 2 Characterization of the papers on the basis of their extent scale of the study and objectives

19


nex I of the Habitats Directive (European Coun-cil Directive 9243EEC) as formations of hard compact biogenic or geogenic substrata which arise from the seafloor in the sublittoral and lit-toral zone hence they are defined in geological terms Paper IV included the following phases identification of elevated structures with BTM comparison of elevated structures with sub-strate data (where available) and establishing of a link between elevations and exposed rock in order to project the occurrences of rocky el-evations to areas without substrate information The conservation value of a reef is related to spe-cies diversity and the structures were therefore ecologically evaluated by modeling the distri-bution of four key species typical of reefs The occurrences of rocky reefs were validated using dive transects

332 Determining Marine Landscapes

Marine landscapes were investigated in Papers I and II

Paper I presented an example of a top-down ap-proach The objective was to produce a coherent spatial dataset on the distribution of seabed geo-morphic features over the entire Baltic Sea As stated in the Introduction some benthic species and their assemblages favor certain geomor-phic features and can be used as a proxies of the benthic biota and biodiversity (eg de Forges et al 2000 Post 2008 Mortensen et al 2009a b McArthur et al 2010 Huang et al 2011 Greene et al 2011 Post et al 2011 Harris amp Baker 2012 and references therein) In addition seabed geomorphic features reflect conspicuous physi-cal elements that are traditionally considered as elements constituting the landscape In Pa-per I the marine landscapes were determined by identifying seabed structures with BTM and performing an overlay analysis to combine the derived structures with seabed substrates and photic zones The scale of the analysis correlated with mega- and mesohabitat scales

Paper II included a bottom-up approach to identify benthic marine landscapes in geologi-cally complex areas of the eastern Gulf of Fin-land at a spatial scale of 1500 000 The study included benthic sampling and full-coverage acoustic surveys of Finnish and Russian key areas at an approximate scale of 15 000 The

purpose was to construct a detailed picture of depth substrate type and zoobenthic composi-tion Altogether 218 zoobenthic samples were collected and analyzed Organisms were iden-tified to the species level (where possible) and statistical analysis was conducted on the spatial distributions of 23 zoobenthic taxa In addition a set of video clips was studied from the Finnish key areas to include information on the benthic organisms inhabiting the coarse-grained sub-strates The zoobenthic samples and video ob-servations were analyzed separately The statis-tical analyses were performed using Plymouth Routines in Multivariate Ecological Research (PRIMER) (Clarke 1993) The BEST and LINK-TREE routines were used to analyze the rela-tionships between abiotic variables and benthic assemblages and to identify thresholds (Clarke et al 2008) that were used to span the benthic marine landscapes to cover the general study area of the eastern Gulf of Finland Paper I re-vealed that the eastern Gulf of Finland includes a diverse seabed environment Thus the abiotic dataset examined in Paper II included variables describing the coastal environment geodiver-sity geological features and multiple analysis neighborhoods among others

333 Geodiversity

Paper III applied selected geodiversity methods developed for terrestrial studies to the seabed environment The broad-scale geodiversity of the Baltic Sea was quantified in a GIS environ-ment with three measures richness patchiness and the geodiversity index Patch richness (ie variability) measures the number of different types or combinations patchiness the number of individual patches over a certain neighborhood and the geodiversity index combines richness and structural complexity into a single variable The measures were analyzed on the basis of geo-logical datasets ie bedrock seabed substrate and the distribution of structures in the GIS en-vironment The geological datasets represented spatial scales from 1 to 2 million and their the-matic resolutions represented similar scales with five categories The geodiversity patterns were analyzed against potential drivers describ-ing glacial influence and post-glacial sedimen-tation and erosion conditions with Spearmanrsquos rank correlation

20


4 RESULTS

Paper I Seabed geomorphic features in a glaciated shelf of the Baltic Sea

Paper I aimed to characterize the seabed land-scape of the Baltic Sea according to the geomor-phic features The seabed geomorphic features were identified by analyzing and modeling ba-thymetric seabed substrate and photic depth datasets which were compiled from countries neighboring the Baltic Sea The scale of the analysis correlated with mega- and mesohabitat scales On this basis a total of 18 seabed geo-morphic features were mapped over the Baltic Sea basin The seabed geomorphic features in-cluded plains basins sea valleys and holes sea troughs elevations and slopes with differing combinations of substrate and euphotic condi-tions Sediment accumulation areas cover ap-proximately one-third of the seafloor

One of the advantages of the study was that it enabled a comparison between sub-regions of the Baltic Sea The results demonstrate that the

Baltic Sea sub-regions differ from each other in the landscape characteristics of the seabed At the Baltic scale plains and basins were the most ubiquitous seabed features while other features such as elevations and sea valleys were more lo-calized

The seabed geomorphic features were consid-ered useful in confronting challenges regarding the physical characterization of the shared ma-rine environment as in the EU Marine Strategy Directive (Directive 200856EC) Knowledge of the distribution of the geomorphic features could aid in identifying some key habitats a top-ic that was further discussed in Paper IV Paper I also included a first approximation of the distri-bution of geodiversity in the Baltic Sea The geo-diversity of the Baltic Sea was the focus of Paper III and the link between geodiversity and ben-thic habitats was further investigated in Paper II

Paper II Linkages between benthic assemblages and physical environmental factors The role of geodiversity in the eastern Gulf of Finland ecosystems

Paper II analyzed the role of geological features and geodiversity in determining the compo-sition of benthic assemblages in geologically complex coastal areas of the eastern Gulf of Finland in the northern Baltic Sea It included geological and biological fieldwork in carefully selected key areas and statistical analysis to ex-amine the relationships between abiotic char-acteristics and benthic assemblages Statistical analyses identified correlations between ben-thic data and abiotic variables but correlations were not consistent with respect to zoobenthic grabs and video observations It was consid-ered that differences were due to the observa-tion methods and the lower coverage area of the video data The ratio of Secchi depth to water depth showed a strong correlation with spe-cies distributions observed in video recordings (ρ ρ= 056) whereas variables describing broad-scale geodiversity and the archipelago gradi-ent (the abundance of islands ratio of land and sea area) correlated with zoobenthic sample data (generally ρ gt 030) The abiotic variables that were analyzed with several neighborhoods

showed that the correlation with benthic as-semblages increased with radii

A model including the Secchi depth and ter-rain roughness explained the greatest proportion of spatial variation in zoobenthic sample data (ρρρ = 069) On the basis of these two variables nine benthic marine landscapes which con-tained distinct benthic assemblages were iden-tified The results revealed that the landscapes found in topographically complex seabed ar-eas generally possessed higher species diversity than flatter areas The most complex landscapes were located in the in the vicinity of islands in the central part of the eastern Gulf of Finland

Paper II suggested that geodiversity which was represented by roughness and the ar-chipelago gradient directly influence benthic assemblages and biodiversity by providing a multitude of habitats and indirectly influence them by channeling the movement of water It also demonstrated that broad-scale geodiversity should be considered in regional habitat map-ping maritime spatial planning and conserva-tion policies

21


Paper III Seabed geodiversity in a glaciated shelf area the Baltic Sea

Paper III followed up Paper I in studying the sea-bed geodiversity of the Baltic Sea While Paper I focused on certain geomorphic features Paper III analyzed broad-scale geodiversity patterns on the basis of three parameters richness patchi-ness and the geodiversity index The geodiver-sity patterns were also analyzed against poten-tial drivers describing the glacial influence and post-glacial sedimentation and erosion condi-tions

The study revealed distinct variation in geo-diversity patterns between sub-regions sup-porting the results of Paper I Particularly archi-pelagos located in crystalline rock showed high geodiversity values Generally the resistant crystalline rock areas displayed higher geodiver-sity values than the more permeable sedimen-tary rock areas The three geodiversity parame-ters exhibited very similar trends in sedimentary

rock areas but were more dispersed in crystal-line rocks The differences between patchiness and richness were especially noticeable both in spatial distribution and correlation values Besides crystalline bedrock geodiversity corre-lated with roughness slope the land uplift rate deglaciation shore density and distance to the coast

Extensive archipelagos with dense occurrenc-es of rocky islands and reefs are characteristic of the Baltic Sea This was observed as high shore density values in crystalline rock areas The ar-chipelagos present dynamic seafloor conditions where seafloor properties and processes change within very short distances

Paper III emphasized that geodiversity should be considered in the ecosystem management of marine areas because it has intrinsic value and it also provides several abiotic ecosystem services

Paper IV Predicting the occurrence of rocky reefs in a heterogeneous archipelago area with limited data

Paper IV presented spatial estimations of the oc-currences of specific geological features rocky reefs which are also included in Annex I of the Habitats Directive (European Council Directive 9243EEC) Annex I lists features that are im-portant in biodiversity protection and should be maintained (or restored) to a favorable conser-vation status and form an ecological network of protected areas the Natura 2000 network

The study focused on the Archipelago Sea where rocky reefs and the associated algal com-munities and blue mussel beds are vital in main-taining biodiversity It was documented that there are rocky islands and reefs within the area as it was also shown by Papers I and III How-ever the spatial distribution of the reefs was not so well known and the past establishment of the Natura 2000 network was partly based on insufficient knowledge of their occurrence For example the seabed substrate data (~120 000)

provided by the national marine geological map-ping program covered less than half of the area

The idea behind Paper IV was to identify rocky reefs from the available bathymetry and sub-strate data by modifying the approach devel-oped in Paper I and to validate these reefs with biological data On this basis 55 out of 68 (81) of the potential reefs that were ground truthed were confirmed to be reefs and the number of predicted key species occurring correlated sig-nificantly with the number of species observed Nevertheless the ground truthing revealed zo-nation within the substrate content with bed-rock and boulders gradating into fine-grained material towards the bottom of the structure This implied that the rocky reef model might ex-aggerate their areal extent or the identified for-mations could actually be reef complexes with undulating surfaces

22


5 DISCUSSION

This dissertation study has demonstrated a GIS-based approach to visualize the geological en-vironment of the seafloor and to compare sub-regional characteristics It has combined sparse knowledge and used it to produce spatial rep-resentations of the Baltic Sea in terms of both seabed geomorphic features and geodiversity (Papers I III IV) The numerical GIS approach enabled the determination of coherent geologi-cal features over the entire Baltic Sea basin and

in specific sub-regions within the limits of the input data resolution Potential key habitats were extrapolated from the existing sources in areas without high-resolution data and they were also recognized as having ecological value (Paper IV) Additionally new evidence was pre-sented linking geodiversity and biodiversity by showing that geodiversity influenced the distri-bution of zoobenthic assemblages (Paper II)

51 Validity of spatial analysis techniques

The benefits of a GIS-based approach include transparency reproducibility and objectivity (eg Paper I) Transparency and reproducibil-ity were supported in all papers by presenting the numerical definitions in use In fact Paper III reproduced part of the geomorphic analysis presented in Paper I because new datasets on bathymetry and seabed substrates had been re-leased between the studies It was encouraging that although the datasets had been updated the results remained approximately the same This also validated the results to some extent In this context objectivity means that the fea-tures were identified following the same prin-ciples over the research area ie the features were commensurate These ldquoBaltic Sea-basedrdquo definitions might not capture all relevant geo-morphic features in other shelf sea areas and they should be adjusted to suit different seas For example both Paper I and the global analy-sis of geomorphic features (Harris et al 2014) applied the definitions provided by the Interna-tional Hydrographic Organization but the iden-tification methods were different Despite the objectivity of the methods the set of variables included in the analyses were partly a subjective choice led by the research interests and avail-able data The presented studies emphasized geological characteristics In cases the inclu-sion of some other parameters such as oxygen or wave energy could have increased the eco-logical validity of the results (eg Papers I II)

An increase in the availability of digital ba-thymetric data has fueled marine geomorphom-etry in the last decade (LeCours et al 2016) This dissertation has provided insights into the po-tential of geomorphometric methods for deriv-

ing new information on seabed characteristics based on low resolution broad-scale datasets Paper I tested BTM which is an ArcMAP toolbox designed for the identification of seabed struc-tures from bathymetry data BTM proved to be a valuable tool and it was considered to provide more information on seabed features than ba-thymetry data alone or bathymetry and slope data combined It was also easy to use and thus it was utilized in all the papers BTM enabled the modeling of potential geomorphic habitats rocky reefs with good accuracy in areas with-out high-resolution seabed mapping data (Paper IV) BTM has been widely used in other benthic studies including studies on a broad scale (eg Buhl-Mortensen et al 2012 Jerosch et al 2016)

The topographic complexity of the seabed was analyzed with roughness calculated as the standard deviation of the slope (Grohmann et al 2011) Paper II demonstrated that roughness had zoobenthic value and Paper III highlighted its correlation with geodiversity

The broad-scale distribution of geodiversity was investigated based on the distribution of seabed geomorphic features and geodiversity parameters patchiness richness and the geo-diversity index (Paper I III) The geomorphic feature analysis provided information on gen-eral distribution patterns as well as on rarity whereas the geodiversity parameters them-selves do not provide any information on rar-ity but focus on the abundance and number of features (Benito-Calvo et al 2009 Paper I III) The geodiversity parameters were mutually cor-related in sedimentary rock areas but not in crystalline rock areas with high topographical complexity (Paper III) Paper III highlighted that

23


topographicalstructural heterogeneity should be taken into account in geodiversity analyses as richness (the number of different types) it-self does not inform about terrain variability Moreover one should ensure that the analysis neighborhood is appropriate for the area (Paper

III) It was interpreted that the broad analysis neighborhood was perhaps too coarse to estab-lish linkages between geodiversity and effec-tive processes in a fragmented seabed environ-ment The radius (20 km) reflected the results of Paper II

52 Datasets

Papers I II and III exploited transnational broad-scale datasets (1500 000 - 11 000 000) compiled and harmonized from different sourc-es The thematic and spatial resolution of the dataset influences the quantification of land-scape patterns (Jelinski amp Wu 1996 Buyantuyev amp Wu 2007 Pellitero et al 2015) The papers in-vestigated broad-scale geological patterns that provide physical information on the seabed landscapes and habitats of the Baltic Sea The geological datasets represented the spatial scales of mega- to mesohabitats The thematic resolu-tions aimed to capture the main elements that define the landscape characteristics Despite the efforts to compile the data uniformly the accu-racy and confidence levels may vary across the datasets because the data were collected using different survey methodologies among other factors (eg Al-Hamdani et al 2007 Al-Ham-dani amp Reker 2007 Kaskela et al 2014 EMODnet Geology 2016)

Some of the available datasets especially from the deeper open sea areas were relatively old or had poor resolution (Papers I III) Modern reli-able data were mostly available for the shallow coastal areas or areas with economic value It is very likely that high-resolution multibeam ba-thymetry data which are not yet available for the whole Baltic Sea will reveal new more detailed information on the geological features of the seabed in the future (eg Greenwood et al 2015 Dowdeswell et al 2016) Additionally airborne topographic light detection and ranging (LiDAR) as well as aerial and satellite images provide opportunities to map the shallow areas (eg Chust et al 2008 Kotilainen amp Kaskela 2017)

There were indications that the resolutions of the spatial data and scale of the investigation were in cases too broad for accurate analyses For instance in places the reefs were not as large as estimated (Paper IV) and the correlations be-tween geodiversity and environmental data were low in the most diverse environment (Paper III)

Nevertheless the broad-scale datasets used in the papers represented the best available data at the time of the study and were considered ad-equate for the analyses It is expected that the high-resolution data will increase the level of detail at the local scale but not so much at the broad scale applied here

It was emphasized in the Introduction that marine surveys are nowadays increasingly con-ducted as case studies with different research interests It is time consuming and costly to survey the seabed Therefore it would be es-sential that frameworks for data collection and possibilities for international and multidiscipli-nary data sharing from different surveys would be supported which would enable scientists and society to take full advantage of the data For ex-ample the research presented in Paper II placed a considerable amount of effort (eg work-shops guidelines researcher exchange) into conducting surveys in Finnish and Russian wa-ters following the same principles to enable data comparability but despite this the different methodologies (eg devices) might still have introduced uncertainties in the results Metadata and confidence estimates are an important ad-dition to actual data especially for multi-source datasets It is also a challenge for the future to develop confidence estimates for data products derived from several multi-source datasets (eg Foster-Smith et al 2007 Reijonen et al 2008) One problem in combining spatial datasets is positioning inaccuracies between datasets or positioning shifts (Reijonen et al 2008 Papers I and III) Here the geomorphic features were identified and validated by comparing features with well-known occurrences (Papers I IV) similarly to Harris et al (2014) and by using eco-logical data (Paper IV)

It was observed that different ground-truth-ing methods led to biased results and impacted on validation (Paper II IV) Differences in the biodiversity level and benthic species content

24


have been discovered due to the sampling gear (eg Reijonen et al 2008 Mortensen et al 2009b Buhl-Mortensen et al 2012 Flannery amp Przeslawski 2015 and references therein Puro 2015 Papers III and IV) Therefore it is impor-tant to consider that ground truthing (eg dive transect video observations grabs) meets the objectives of the study For example grab sam-ples focus on soft sediment habitats while video observations enable the observation of coarse and hard seafloor habitats the former enable study of the infaunasediment column while

the latter provide a visual image from a birdrsquos (~fish)-eye view and enable the identification of the epifauna (eg Flannery amp Przeslawski 2015 and references therein) The accuracy meas-ure (eg AUC) reflecting the recorded species observations against the predictions does not detect these types of limitations or biases of the derived models (Paper IV) It is recommended to use multiple gear types to examine general bio-diversity patterns (Buhl-Mortensen et al 2012 Flannery amp Przeslawski 2015)

53 Seabed landscape characteristics of the Baltic Sea

The continental shelves are submarine continu-ations of the continents extending from the shoreline to the continental slope The seabed substrate distribution on the shelf is controlled by complex interactions between bedrock geo-logy the tectonic setting glaciation history sediment supply and erosion bed stress and slope (Reineck amp Singh 1980) Tides ice wind-generated waves and currents are generally the main sources of energy for eroding and trans-porting the marine sediments of the shelf seas at present

The studies presented are in line with oth-er studies stating that glaciated shelf areas are shaped by bedrock composition glacial impact and post-glacial processes (eg Winterhalter et al 1981 Josenhans amp Zevenhuizen 1990 Beaman amp Harris 2003 Todd amp Kostylev 2011 Shaw et al 2014) The analyses confirmed that the underly-ing basement significantly impacts on the geodi-versity level of the seabed on a broad scale (Papers I III) The high geodiversity areas were located in Precambrian crystalline basement while the more homogeneous open sea and southern areas are mainly located on sedimentary rocks Sand covers large areas of the southern Baltic where sedimentary rocks provide sources for sand On average one-third of the Baltic seafloor can be regarded as a sediment accumulation area The crystalline bedrock areas include approximately 25 of the seafloor of the Baltic Sea and they oc-cur especially in the northern area Differences in the resistance to erosion of various rock types (due to hardness lithology and cleavage) gla-cial scouring and fault intensity all contribute to the rugged topography in crystalline basement rock areas

During the LGM the global sea level was more than 120 m lower than today and parts of the current sea areas were either dry land or glaci-ated (eg Clark amp Mix 2002 Clark et al 2009 Lambeck et al 2014) Due to glacial activity and fluctuation in the shoreline position glacial de-posits such as till and moraine as well as coastal deposits such as boulder fields are found on the seafloor of the formerly glaciated areas (eg Todd amp Kostylev 2011 Shaw et al 2014 Green-wood et al 2015 Dowdeswell et al 2016) In re-lation to this Paper I showed that moraines can be found throughout the Baltic Sea and the areal coverage of exposed moraines increased towards the north Additionally some sea valley systems coincided with fault lines glacial outlets and ancient rivers

Paper III confirmed that the geodiversity of the Baltic Sea reflects the glacial influence It was interesting that the geodiversity did not ap-pear to reflect so much the extent or duration of glaciation but sudden events during deglacia-tion When geodiversity levels were compared with deglaciation patterns peaks that correlated with the openings of the sea connections and sea-level lowerings were noticed Sediment de-formations related to the sea-level changes have been identified in limited seabed areas which have been interpreted as debrites triggered by rapid base-level lowerings (Hyttinen et al 2011) Paleoseismic events which were most likely ac-tivated when the ice sheet was retreating from a certain area and bedrock stresses were released through lineaments and fracture zones (Koti-lainen amp Hutri 2004 Hutri et al 2007) might have impacted on the seabed environment Based on the results it appears that these abrupt

25


geological events have had a significant impact on the seabed environment that is still evident in the vicinity of the edge of the ice sheet More-over the glacial influence continues to affect the seafloor processes of the Baltic Sea even today because glacial-isostatic uplift continuously raises new material into shallower areas of ac-tive erosion (Ekman 1996 Kakkuri 2012)

Besides bedrock and glacial impact geodiver-sity was associated with roughness slope the land uplift rate distance to the coast and shore density Coastal areas are energetic and active environments where various processes modify the seabed resulting in high seafloor diversity In particular the areas with a high shore den-sity the archipelagos are very heterogeneous These contrast with open sea areas which are typically more flat and stable areas (and located on sedimentary rocks) For instance the Arko-na Sea the Bornholm Sea and the Gulf of Riga have homogeneous seafloor environments with plains basins and elevations covering the ma-jority of these sub-regions (Papers I III) The correlation with roughness and slope was self-evident because generally high values indicate a dynamic environment with areas of erosion and sedimentation that take place within short dis-tances The significance of these variables was further explained by the fact that they reflect the structural aspects of the bedrock itself which are due to long-term pre-glacial and glacial pro-cesses Additionally basal roughness might be linked with the former ice stream flow and base-ment properties

The dissertation study demonstrated that the Baltic Sea sub-regions differ from each other in their geologicallandscape characteristics al-though some sub-regions are more similar than others (Papers I and III) Generally the southern sub-regions resemble each other in their geo-logical features but diverge from the northern areas while the northern areas are alike As not-ed above geodiversity in the Baltic Sea is noted to increase towards the north and from open sea to high shore density areas (Paper III)

One could attempt to delineate sub-regions based on the seabed landscapegeological char-acteristics presented in Papers I and III Where would the thresholds be Both papers support separating crystalline bedrock areas from sedi-mentary rock areas the latter being more homo-geneous in terms of geodiversity Coastal areas

and especially archipelagos could also be deline-ated from open sea areas Archipelagos serve as high geodiversity regions and include a variety of seabed geomorphic features Besides they are also areas with potential rocky reef occur-rences which are among the key habitats The Baltic Sea is a generally shallow and flat seabed area supported by the statistic that plains cover about 50 of the seafloor Thus deep areas with steep slopes such as the Aringland Sea High Coast the area south of Stockholm and the Swedish coast around the Sound represent exceptional environments that have also been linked with geodiversity In addition (coastal) areas with clusters of sea valleys and troughs which often serve as water passages and transport nutrients should be separated as specific seafloor environ-ments Complex substrate elevations are char-acteristic of the northern Baltic Sea and espe-cially in Kvarken area with intensive isostatic up-lift continuously exposing new areas to ero-sion and revealing glacial deposits such as till and moraines (Reijonen 2004 Kotilainen et al 2012 Kotilainen amp Kaskela 2017) Furthermore a correlation between a land-uplift rate above 2 mmy and geodiversity was observed (Paper III) The results promote the lineation of the uplift zone occurring in the northern Baltic Sea Iso-static uplift enables continuous succession from the seabed to the coastal area and the shallow areas in the uplift zone are consequently gen-erally younger than in the central and southern Baltic Sea No relationship between geodiversity and water depth was observed although geodi-versity was generally lower in areas deeper than 80 m which are also below the permanent halo-cline This and other studies support the separa-tion of areas deeper than 80 m from shallower areas (Winterhalter et al 1981 Kohonen amp Win-terhalter 1999 Myrberg et al 2006)

In Paper III it is noted that three geodiversity parameters showed more analogous patterns in sedimentary rock areas than in crystalline rock areas The correlations were also weaker in crys-talline rock areas Generally crystalline rocks were identified to include higher geodiversity than sedimentary rocks The broad scale of the study (the neighborhood of the analyses and low resolution data) probably prevented the cap-ture of associations between geodiversity and environmental variables in the most fragment-ed seabed areas Therefore the scale of future

26


analyses should consider the geodiversity of the seabed environment

531 Archipelagos

Vast archipelagos are a particular feature of the central and northern part of the Baltic Sea (Nie-melauml et al 2015) The Stockholm Archipelago and Archipelago Sea contain tens of thousands of is-lands and are probably among the largest archi-pelagos in the world Based on Papers I and IV elevations with rock are characteristic of the ar-chipelagos and coincide with Precambrian base-ment rocks which have suffered glacial scour-ing and over-deepening of pre-existing drainage channels At present the most resistant mate-rials mainly granites and gneisses stand out as elevated structures forming islands and rocky reefs and material in between has been eroded thus forming submarine channels The elongat-ed deep-sea troughs characteristic of the Aringland Sea and the Archipelago Sea partly coincide with fault lines and thrust zones and serve as im-portant water passages that connect the Baltic Proper with the Gulf of Bothnia (Winterhalter et al 1981 Koistinen et al 1996) Additionally Pa-pers I and IV showed that glacial deposits such as eskers and moraines are typical of the Gulf of Finland and the northernmost archipelagos or of specific zones within the Archipelago Sea Elevations of sand are typical of the submarine area around the Salpausselkauml formation (Paper IV) and moraine formations such as De Geer moraines characterize the both terrestrial and submarine landscape of the Kvarken Archipela-go (Breilin et al 2004 2005 Reijonen 2004 Ko-tilainen et al 2012 Kotilainen amp Kaskela 2017)

The archipelagos can be divided into zones that run parallel to the coastline and represent the gradient from coastal areas to more open sea conditions the sheltered inner archipelago the middle archipelago and the exposed outer archi-pelago (eg Haumlyreacuten 1900 Jaatinen 1960 Granouml et al 1999) At the simplest the archipelago zones have been defined based on land to sea ratio The archipelago zonation has been noted to influence hydrographic properties terrestrial vegetation coastal geology fish and benthic communities (eg von Numers amp van der Maarel 1998 Haumlnninen et al 2000 2007 Korvenpaumlauml et al 2003 OrsquoBrien et al 2003 Vahteri et al

2009) Nevertheless it has been proposed that the zoobenthic communities in the archipelago are not delineated by surface boundaries ie the land-to-sea ratio but by depth and factors re-lated to it (OrsquoBrien et al 2003) In addition the transitional patterns of water properties from the inner to the outer archipelago (Archipelago Sea) are in cases prone to anomalies For exam-ple temperature and chlorophyll-a have shown geographically divergent seasonal developments (Suominen et al 2010) Papers II and IV which focused on the archipelago areas of the eastern Gulf of Finland and Archipelago Sea respective-ly support the view that the land-to-sea ratio does not capture the true variability of the sea-bed environment

Paper II analyzed benthic assemblages against environmental variables According to the re-sults variables describing the archipelago gra-dient the abundance of islands and ratio of land to sea correlated with zoobenthic sample data However the land-to-sea ratio (eg ar-chipelago zonation) received lower correlation values (ρ lt 040) than the abundance of islands (ρρ gt 040) In contrast to the archipelago gradi-ent the number of islands did not take account of the size of the islands and small skerries had the same weighting as larger ones The results also revealed a strong correlation between benthic assemblages and seabed roughness The influ-ence of both roughness and the archipelago gra-dient appeared to increase with the spatial scale These broad spatial scales were probably partly related to certain functional processes such as water circulation sediment transport or zoo-benthic behavior This was supported by the fact that salinity co-varied with depth roughness and island abundance It was explained that nu-merous islands and the complexity of the seabed could form a submarine labyrinth controlling water movement and hydrographical conditions Geomorphic features and the physical complexi-ty of the seabed generate transport channels and submarine sills that could result in the forma-tion of sheltered bays with limited flushing and occasional anoxic conditions Generally oxygen deficiency is related to deeper areas but within the archipelago environments seasonal anoxia or even decades-long anoxic conditions have been recorded from shallow depths (OrsquoBrien et al 2003 Virtasalo et al 2005 Vallius 2006 Koti-

27


lainen et al 2007 Lukkari et al 2009 Vallius et al 2011) Oxygen depletion is among the greatest pressures affecting the achievement of a good environmental status of the benthic habitats of the Baltic Sea (Korpinen et al 2013)

Paper IV included the modeling of specific geomorphic features namely rocky reefs in the Archipelago Sea Generally the main material of elevated structures within the study area con-sisted of rock and boulders indicating energetic seafloor conditions Potential reefs were primar-ily concentrated in the exposed outer archipela-go and they often extended above the surfaces forming skerries Thus what was observed on the sea surface did not represent a true image of the seabed area Examining the reef distribu-tion presented in Figure 4 of Paper IV it can be seen that rocky reefs already form a submarine

labyrinth in the outer archipelago and the small skerries are actually crests of larger rocky eleva-tions which will grow into larger islets and is-lands due to land uplift

The research presented promotes further studies on the inclusion of seabed characteristics into archipelago zonation and benthic analyses Archipelagos of the Baltic Sea are sensitive envi-ronments with high geodiversity They provide several ecosystem services with the Stockholm Archipelago for example being of major sig-nificance as a recreational area (Sandstroumlm et al 2000) The functionality of the sensitive archi-pelagos should be preserved and spatial knowl-edge of the basins sensitive to anoxia could assist in the effective management of the archipela-gos for example

54 Associations between geological characteristics and benthic assemblages

Relationships between organisms and environ-mental variables are scale dependent (eg Zajac et al 2003 Post 2008 Williams et al 2010 Last et al 2010 Buhl-Mortensen et al 2012 Zajac et al 2013) It is known that the seabed substrate strongly influences zoobenthic communities on local and regional spatial scales within the Baltic Sea (eg Rousi et al 2011 Snickars et al 2014 Weigel et al 2015) Certain geomorphic features also define the distribution of the benthic biota and biodiversity (eg Harris amp Baker 2012 and references therein Paper IV) and abiotic aspects of the habitat complexity influence the benthic communities (eg Kostylev et al 2001 Olenin amp Daunys 2004 McArthur et al 2010 Shum-chenia amp King 2010 Harris amp Baker 2012b Buhl-Mortensen et al 2012 LaFrance et al 2014) Abiotic heterogeneity reflects the abundance of varying habitats spatial variation in resources and thus biodiversity (eg Burnett et al 1998 Nichols et al 1998 Dufour et al 2006 Parks amp Mulligan 2010 Stein et al 2014 Paper II) The geodiversity parameters roughness substrate variability and substrate patchiness which also describe abiotic heterogeneity have been cor-related with benthic assemblages on the marine landscape scale (eg LaFrance et al 2014 Paper II) Results suggest that geodiversity influences benthic assemblages on broad spatial scales whereas seabed substrates and geomorphic fea-

tures affect benthic assemblages at more local scales (Paper II Paper IV)

The correlation between geodiversity and bio-diversity is not necessarily one-to-one Paper III observed that the most complex landscape did not include the highest biodiversity As men-tioned earlier it was explained that topographic complexity could result in complex hydrological systems that limit circulation and lead to hypox-icanoxic conditions It is also possible that the upper ranges of physical complexity reflect hab-itat fragmentation rather than habitat heteroge-neity (as explained by Tews et al 2004) Seabed geodiversity results in greater habitat complex-ity but biodiversity also depends on the health of the seabed environment and active processes

Paper IV was successful in assigning ecological value to potential rocky reefs It also noted that rocky habitats on large complex reefs reaching the surface several times resulted in a higher species number than those in more isolated reefs These large reefs were probably better connected to each other in contrast to smaller elevations separated by deeper trenches em-phasizing the importance of connectivity

The results support further studies on seabed geodiversity connectivity and biodiversity in order to promote a functional network of marine protected areas

28


55 Results in the context of ESBM and other uses

Effective transnational marine spatial planning requires extensive knowledge of the environ-mental characteristics of the region in question (eg Collie et al 2013) It is relevant to ask how it is possible to describe the marine ecosystems with insufficient datasets It is highly unlike-ly that all marine areas will be surveyed with a detailed resolution in the coming decades (eg Weatherall et al 2015) In ESBM it has been considered that some species are more impor-tant than others to maintain the function and resilience of the marine ecosystem and that it is logical to conserve the ones we know are im-portant (Crowder amp Norse 2008) Similar to this scientists should strive to recognize the most important features that support the functioning of marine ecosystems in the long term

Analyses of seabed geomorphic features and geodiversity provide consistent information on the physical marine environment (Papers IndashIV) and deliver background data for ESBM and for European directives such as the Habitats Direc-tive (Directive 9243EEC) the Water Frame-work Directive (Directive 200060EC) the Ma-rine Strategy Framework Directive (Directive 200856EC) and the Maritime Spatial Plan-ning Directive (Directive 201489EU) It should be noted however that this dissertation aimed to characterize broad-scale characteristics of the seafloor which are useful for management at a national or international level The results should not be used in local-scale management or for the conservation of a particular threatened species or iconic feature

Conservation of ecosystem structure and func-tioning is one of the main principles of the ESBM (Pirot et al 2000 Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 2004) Ecosystems are not stable but adapt to changes in the surround-ing environment (Pirot et al 2000 Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 2004 Long et al 2015) Oceans have changed their size and shape throughout geological history during glaciations the sea level has lowered and in in-terglacials the sea level has been elevated High sea-level conditions such as at present have only occurred for about 12 of the time during the past 150000 years (Harris amp Baker 2012) The advance and retreat of ice sheets have been cen-tral to the development of the benthic environ-

ments occurring across the shelf environments and many relict glacial features form unique benthic habitats (eg Post et al 2011 Todd amp Kostylev 2011 Harris 2012 and references there-in Shaw et al 2014) The same is valid for the Baltic Sea (Winterhalter et al 1981 Papers I and III) All species living on the continental shelf at present are colonists that have arrived in the last 10000 years or less (Harris 2012) The ecologi-cal age of the Baltic Sea dates back about 8000 years and several uninhabited ecological niches are still available (Bonsdorff 2006) Moreover the current climate change scenarios estimate a relative sea-level rise of around of 060 m near Hamburg and a relative sea-level fall of 035 m in the Bothnian Bay by 2100 (Grinsted 2015) Bal-tic-scale variations in sea-level change are due to the local compensation of GIA

Recognition of the inevitability of change is critically important to the ESBM (Pirot et al 2000 Secretariat of the Convention on Biologi-cal Diversity 2004) It has been recommended that conservation sites should include a range of environments allowing organisms to adjust to changing environmental conditions (Hunter et al 1988) The conservation of geological fea-tures and geodiversity might support the long-term protection of natural succession biological processes and biodiversity because geological features are more stable in time than biologi-cal communities (Hunter et al 1988 Nichols et al 1998 Anderson amp Ferree 2010 Beier amp Brost 2010 Parks amp Mulligan 2010 Hjort et al 2012 Gill et al 2015 Paper I Paper III) Erosion and deposition generally influence geodiversity on very long time scales even though abrupt events such as major storms changes in drain-age or human-induced perturbations may alter the benthic environment on short time scales (Nuorteva amp Kankaanpaumlauml 2016 Paper III) Areas that represent the diversity of the current abiotic conditions probably encompass a broad enough range of environments to allow organisms to ad-just their local distribution in response to long-term environmental change (eg Hunter et al 1988 Nichols et al 1998)

Furthermore spatial data on geodiversity and geomorphic features can be applied to identify the most important areas for future studies and to recommend which types of environments

29


need more protection Geomorphic knowledge can help identify the critical life habitats and advance the application of ESBM to the design of marine reserve networks (eg Halpern et al 2008 Wright amp Heyman 2008 Harris 2012) For example the rocky reefs defined in Paper IV pro-vide spatial data the Habitats Directive which calls for the creation of a network of special are-as of conservation ie the Natura 2000 network Other potential applications of marine geomor-phological mapping in ESBM include wave en-ergy modeling renewable energy exploitation determining essential fish habitats and habitat suitability for economically-important spe-cies fishing resources dredged sediment dis-posal management the valuation of ecosystem goods and services the development of biologi-cal quality indices landndashsea exchange modeling and human activity sensitivity maps (Galparsoro et al 2010 and references therein)

ESBM should acknowledge the influence of the functional links between geodiversity and biodiversity (Gray et al 2013) High geodiversity areas can be used to target surveys to optimal areas with the maximum diversity of habitats to inform on the dynamics of the seafloor envi-ronment (Paper I Paper II Paper III) It is sug-gested that on the mesoscale a high degree of seabed geodiversity may override the influence of specific seabed features in determining zoo-benthic assemblages (Paper II) Areas with high geodiversity are also candidates for a MPA within a region allowing perhaps the maximum biodi-versity to be protected within the smallest pos-sible area (Harris et al 2008 Harris amp Whiteway 2009) Generally maps of seabed landscapes or high seafloor complexity can be used to direct certain anthropogenic activities such as under-water constructions sand extraction and aqua-culture to the most suitable areas and to develop guidelinesframeworks for the monitoring of environmental impacts (eg Inger et al 2009 Punt et al 2009 Handley et al 2014 Uρcinowicz et al 2014) It is likely that detailed surveys are needed to fully describe conditions over frag-mented landscapes whereas less detailed sur-veys might be sufficient over homogeneous flat landscapes (see eg van Son et al 2015)

Often ecosystem studies primarily address the biotic parts or treat abiotic characteristics only as complementing biodiversity (eg see Foley et al 2010 and references therein) Never-theless the ecosystem consists of both its biotic and abiotic parts and their interactions Geodi-versity is not just a complement of biodiversity but a fundamental part of natural diversity (Ser-rano amp Ruiz-Flanotilde 2007) Geodiversity has in-trinsic value and it provides abiotic ecosystem services (Gray 2011 Gray et al 2013) It provides resources that can help society to adapt to cli-mate change and to mitigate its consequences through an improved understanding of natural processes among others (Gordon et al 2012) Geodiversity should be integrated as a scientific tool together with biodiversity to obtain territo-rial understanding and land management infor-mation (Serrano amp Ruiz-Flantildeo 2007 Paper III)

Spatial information on important ecosystem features is critical in conservation and marine spatial planning Papers I and III have confirmed that the seabed landscape characteristics of the Baltic Sea vary between locations and that they reflect the bedrock type glacial history and on-going geological processes The maps presented in Paper IV serve as a valuable background for the more detailed mapping of the species di-versity on reefs as well as for monitoring their ecological status The results of Paper II were conveyed to decision makers in charge of the maritime spatial planning process of the Ky-menlaakso area and as a consequence an area of high geodiversity has now been acknowledged in the maritime spatial plan of the Finnish east-ern Gulf of Finland (Kymenlaakson Liitto 2014)

It is also notable that marine maps do not just serve scientific knowledge and ESBM but ad-ditionally promote public engagement with the marine environment (eg Cogan et al 2009) The underwater world is largely invisible and submarine maps such as those included in this dissertation can be used to raise awareness and communicate the status of the marine ecosys-tem to the general public Similarly to the Blue Marble and the other images from space sub-marine maps are among the tools for visualizing the unseen

30


6 CONCLUSIONS

The seabed of the Baltic Sea is primarily char-acterized by various plains and basins Eleva-tions and features such as valleys holes and troughs are locally concentrated Sand occurs in the southern Baltic Sea and Bothnian Bay The coverage of exposed moraines increases towards the north Sediment accumulation areas cover approximately one-third of the Baltic seafloor

The seabed geodiversity of the Baltic Sea var-ies between sub-regions The seabed geodiver-sity of the Baltic Sea generally increases from south to north and from open sea to areas with a high shore density Crystalline bedrock ar-eas provide more diverse seabed environments than sedimentary rock areas The associations between environmental parameters and geodi-versity were lower in crystalline rock areas than in sedimentary rocks which indicates a need for higher data resolution and a shorter analysis neighborhood in these areas

Archipelagos stood out as seabed areas with high geodiversity The results suggest that the numerous islands rocky reefs and complexity of the seabed might form a submarine laby-rinth which already controls water movement and hydrographical conditions in the outer archipelago

Differences in the geomorphic content and geodiversity levels of the Baltic sub-regions are due to the basement rock type glacial his-tory and ongoing processes Geodiversity was especially related to roughness shore den-sity and glacier-derived processes The re-sults suggest that geodiversity is not related to the extent or the duration of the ice sheet

but to certain geological events during the last deglaciation

Geological features and geodiversity were examined in relation to benthic assemblages to determine the benthic marine landscapes of the eastern Gulf of Finland The results indicate that at broad spatial scales geodiversity over-rides the influence of the seabed substrate and geomorphology The landscapes found in topo-graphically complex seabed areas possessed higher species diversity than more homogene-ous areas High geodiversity and archipelago gradient might directly influence the benthic as-semblages and biodiversity by providing a mul-titude of habitats and indirectly by channeling water movement

Key habitat features rocky reefs were identi-fied in a complex archipelago area in the north-ern Baltic Sea using the best although limited data currently available Rocky reefs were de-fined with geomorphic terms The study dem-onstrated that potential key habitats can be extrapolated from the existing sources in areas without high resolution data with good accuracy and ecological validity

The results provide spatial information for scientists marine spatial planners and manag-ers on the seabed characteristics of the Baltic Sea based on geological data Geodiversity should be acknowledged in the ecosystem-based manage-ment of marine areas because it has intrinsic value it provides several abiotic ecosystem ser-vices and is associated with the biodiversity and long-term conservation of the marine environ-ment

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This dissertation study was conducted in the Ma-rine Geology unit of the Geological Survey of Fin-land (GTK) and at the Department of Geoscienc-es and Geography of the University of Helsinki The study was supported by the Marine Geology and Global Change Research Program of GTK and the Finnish Inventory Program for the Underwa-ter Marine Environment (VELMU) The results presented were derived from the following pro-jects BALANCE (2005ndash2007) part-financed by

the European Union within the BSR INTERREG III B Program the EU Life+ project FINMARINET (2009ndash2013) TOPCONS funded by the South-East Finland ndash Russia ENPI CBC 2007ndash2013 Pro-gram the EU-funded EMODnet Geology project and the SmartSea project which was supported by the Strategic Research Council at the Acad-emy of Finland (grant number 292 985)

First of all I want to acknowledge my super-visor Research Professor Aarno Kotilainen I

31


probably would not have started or finished this work without your encouragement I have spent some time now thinking about how I could ever express all my gratitude for your support from the very early steps of my career your guidance knowledge insight patience time trust in my skills positivity a good sense of humor all the travels and fun times Ale I have been privileged to have had such a great supervisor ndash thank you

I also want to thank Professor Veli-Pekka Sa-lonen for the opportunity to pursue this work for your belief in me and my topic And a spe-cial word of thanks for setting a firm deadline for this thesis which has enabled me to finally finish the job I wish you all the best for the new chapter in your life

Professor Juha Karhu is acknowledged for tak-ing over the administrative matters in the final phase and also agreeing to act as the Custos dur-ing the public defense

I would like to sincerely thank the pre-ex-aminers Professor Risto Kalliola and Professor Larry Mayer for taking the time to review this dissertation and their valuable comments

I am very grateful to all the people I have met along the way and who have contributed to my research I wish to thank all the co-authors of the original papers for their valuable comments and input Your contribution is very much ap-preciated and I hope we can work together in the future too I would like to acknowledge the people who have participated in BALANCE FIN-MARINET TOPCONS SmartSea and EMODnet Geology projects This thesis is also one of the outcomes of the VELMU programme and I want to express my sincerest gratitude to all the peo-ple who have been involved in VELMU and pro-vided data amp knowledge In particular I want to thank Anna Downie Henna Rinne Heta Rousi

Minna Ronkainen Marina Orlova Kirsi Kos-tamo Daria Ryabchuk Vladimir Zhamoida Igor Neevin Alexander Sergeev Zyad Al-Hamdani Joslashrgen Leth Alan Stevenson Sami Jokinen Son-ja Salovius-Laureacuten Miina Karjalainen Ari Laine Jouni Leinikki Erik Bonsdorff Markku Viitasalo Pasi Laihonen and Penina Blankett

The Finnish Graduate School of Geology has enabled participation in some training courses and conferences Seija Kultti and Mia Kotilainen are acknowledged for the issues related to the postgraduate studies and administration Roy Siddall has revised the language and Kristina Karvonen has helped in publishing the thesis

I want to acknowledge all my current and pre-vious superiors at GTK for providing me the op-portunity to proceed with my thesis The head of the Marine Geology unit Jyrki Rantataro is especially acknowledged for his support advice and trust Keijo Nenonen is thanked for giv-ing valuable comments on the original papers I am grateful to my colleagues at GTK who have helped and supported me with this thesis and other work during these years Hanna Virkki Kirsti Keskisaari and Antti Kahra have been very helpful with GIS issues and Harri Kutvonen has helped with posters and images Vesa Nykaumlnen and Jukka-Pekka Palmu have given some rele-vant courses and provided their expertise

I am indebted to my colleagues and friends at the Marine Geology unit for their support ad-vice surveys and data travels good laughs and coffee among other things Eija Ulla Jyrki H Joonas Kimmo Pekka Henry Erkki Olli and Matti ndash you are the BEST

Last but not least I would like to express my warmest gratitude to my husband family and friends for your encouragement care love and endless support You mean the world to me

TERMINOLOGY

Abiotic ecosystem service Ecosystem services that are related to geodiversity can be termed lsquoabiotic ecosystem servicesrsquo These include reg-ulating (eg terrestrial processes including the rock cycle and carbon cycle) provisioning (eg minerals construction materials) supporting (eg habitats) and cultural services (eg geo-tourism knowledge) (Gray 2011 Gray et al 2013)

Ancylus Lake Ancylus Lake was a stage in the history of the Baltic Sea It was a freshwater stage which took place around 107ndash98 ka BP

Baltic Ice Lake The Baltic Ice Lake refers to a freshwater lake that gradually formed in the Bal-tic Sea basin during the last deglaciation The Bal-tic Ice Lake dates back to around 170ndash117 ka BP

32


Bathymetric position index (BPI) (also topo-graphic position index TPI) The bathymetric position index is a second-order derivative of bathymetry The BPI is derived as a measure of where a certain georeferenced location with a defined elevation is relative to the general land-scape The derivation involves evaluating eleva-tion differences between a focal point and the mean elevation of the surrounding cells within a user-defined neighborhood (Lundblad et al 2006 Wright et al 2012)

Benthic terrain modeler (BTM) Benthic Terrain Modeler is an ArcGIS extension that was devel-oped by the NOAA Coastal Services Centerrsquos GIS Integration and Development program in coop-eration with the Oregon State University Davey Jones Locker Seafloor MappingMarine GIS Lab The extension analyzes the benthic terrain from input (multibeam) bathymetry in ESRIrsquos GRID (raster) format and allows users to create grids of the slope bathymetric position index and rugo-sity from an input data set (Wright et al 2012)

Biodiversity Biodiversity refers to the variabil-ity among living organisms from all sources in-cluding inter alia terrestrial marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complex-es of which they are part this includes diversity within species between species and of ecosys-tems (United Nations 1992)

Blue growth The Blue Growth Strategy was adopted by the European Commission in 2012 It is a long-term strategy to support sustainable growth in the marine and maritime sectors as a whole (European Commission 2012)

Echosounder (Single-beam) An echosounder uses sound waves to measure water depth and sometimes also the properties of the soft sedi-ments below the seafloor The time interval bet-ween the emission and return of a pulse is recor-ded which is then used to determine the depth of water andor thickness of sediment units under the survey track line Single-beam echo-sounders use high-frequency sound waves For example GTKrsquos echosounder which also detects sediment properties uses a frequency of 28 kHz Echosounder data can be processed to provide a visual profile of the seabed sedimentssedimen-tary units

Ecosystem An ecosystem comprises all the liv-ing organisms in an area and the way in which they influence each other and the environment

Ecosystem-based management (ESBM) Eco-system-based management is as an interdis-ciplinary approach to marine spatial planning which balances ecological social and govern-ance principles at appropriate temporal and spatial scales in a distinct geographical area to achieve the sustainable use of the resources (Long et al 2015)

Ecosystem service Ecosystem services are the benefits provided by ecosystems which include provisioning (eg food and water) regulating (eg regulation of climate) cultural (eg rec-reation) and supporting services (eg nutrient cycling) (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005)

EMODnet The European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) consists of organ-izations assembling marine data products and metadata to make them more available to pub-lic and private users relying on quality-assured standardized and harmonized marine data which are interoperable and free of restrictions on use For further information see httpwwwemodneteu

Geoconservation Geoconservation can be de-fined as action taken with the intent of conserv-ing and enhancing geological and geomorpho-logical features processes sites and specimens (Burek amp Prosser 2008)

Geodiversity Geodiversity takes into account the natural range of geological geomorphologi-cal and soil features as well as their assemblag-es relationships properties interpretations and systems (Gray 2004)

Geodiversity index The geodiversity index aims to assess the level of geodiversity It re-lates the variety of physical elements with the roughness and surface of the previously established geomorphological units accord-ing to the following formula Gd Eg R Ln S where Gd = geodiversity Index Eg = number of different physical elements in the unit R = coef-ficient of roughness of the unit S = surface of the

33


unit (km2) and Ln = neperian (in cases replaced by natural) logarithm (Serrano amp Ruiz-Flantildeo 2007 Hjort amp Luoto 2010)

Geographic information system (GIS) A geo-graphic information system refers to a computer system that stores organizes and analyses data that relate to the position area or size of objects

Geomorphometry The science of quantitative terrain analysis which combines mathemat-ics earth sciences engineering and computer science is called geomorphometry (Pike et al 2008)

Glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) Glacial iso-static adjustment describes the ongoing adjust-ment process of the earth once burdened by ice sheets

Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) The Last Glacial Maximum refers to the period during the latest glacial when the global ice sheets reached their maximum integrated volume

Litorina Sea Litorina Sea is a brackish-water stage of the Baltic Sea which started around 85 ka BP and has transformed into the current Baltic Sea

Marine landscape (also seascape benthoscape) Marine landscapes are combinations of ecologi-cally determined hydrographic bathymetric and geological datasets that characterize poten-tial broad habitat distribution patterns (Roff amp Taylor 2000) The approach informs conserva-tion efforts that seek to optimize biodiversity (rather than a particular species) in a given area The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) specifies that the term lsquomarine landscapersquo is similar to the term lsquohabitatrsquo in that it refers to an area of integrated landforms and biota but covers a broader spatial area

Marine protected area (MPA) A marine pro-tected area is any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain together with its overlying water and as-sociated flora fauna historical and cultural fea-tures which has been reserved by law or other effective means to protect part or all of the en-closed environment (Kelleher 1999)

Marine spatial planning (MSP) (also maritime spatial planning) Marine spatial planning is a public process of analyzing and allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of human ac-tivities in marine areas to achieve ecological economic and social objectives that are usually specified through a political process (Ehler amp Douvere 2009)

Multibeam echosounder (MBES) Multibeam echosounders collect bathymetric soundings in a swath perpendicular to the ship track by elec-tronically forming a series of transmit and re-ceive beams in the transducer hardware which measure the depth to the seafloor in discrete angular increments or sectors across the swath (Hughes-Clarke et al 1996)

Patchiness Within this dissertation patchiness refers to a geodiversity parameter that analyses the number of individual geological patches over a certain neighborhood

Richness Within this dissertation richness re-fers to a geodiversity parameter which analyses the variability of the different geological feature types over a certain neighborhood

Seabed landscape Within this dissertation sea-bed landscape refers to the physical landscape of the seabed and includes geomorphic features substrates and geodiversity

Seismic profiler Seismic profiles provide data on seafloor sub-bottom properties The system includes an acoustic wave generating seismic source and one or more receivers of the reflect-ed signal Seismic profilers use low frequency acoustic waves (eg GTKrsquos ELMA has frequency range of 250ndash1300 Hz) which also penetrate coarser material of the seafloor Seismic pro-filing includes the following phases first the acoustic waves are emitted from the source to the seabed then the transmitted acoustic waves are reflected from boundaries between various layers with different acoustic properties (eg ge-ological units) and finally the energy reflected back from the solid seabed layers is received by hydrophones and the data are processed so that a visual profile of the seabed geological units can be created

34


Side scan sonar (SSS) Side scan sonar creates an image of the surface properties of the sea-floor and provides information on the distribu-tion of the surficial substrate It is accomplished by towing a sonar device that scans the seafloor by emitting fan-shaped acoustic energy pulses down and later receives the returned acoustic pulses The intensity of the acoustic reflections from the seafloor depends on the material For example hard areas such as rock reflect more sound and have a stronger return signal than

softer materials The typical frequencies of side scan sonars range from 100 to 500 kHz

Sustainable development Sustainable develop-ment aims at meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future gen-erations to meet their needs (WCED 1987)

Yoldia Sea Yoldia Sea was a brackish water stage of the Baltic Sea subsequent to the Baltic Ice Lake It occurred around 117ndash107 ka BP

REFERENCES

Al-Hamdani Z Reker J (eds) Alanen U Andersen J H Bendtsen J Bergstroumlm U Dahl K Dinesen G Erichsen A Elhammer A Geitner K Her-mansen B Holmberg J Kotilainen A Leth J Lindberg T Lindeberg G Nyberg J Reijonen A Riabtchouk D Sparrevohn C Soslashrensen T Soumlderkvist J Thougaard L Vestergaard L amp Zet-terlund S 2007 Towards marine landscapes in the Kattegat and Baltic Sea BALANCE Interim Report No 10 116 p

Al-Hamdani Z K Reker J Leth J O Reijonen A Kotilainen A T amp Dinesen G E 2007 Develop-ment of marine landscape maps for the Baltic Sea and the Kattegat using geophysical and hydrographi-cal para meters Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland Bulletin 13 61ndash64

Anderson M G amp Ferree C E 2010 Conserving the Stage Climate Change and the Geophysical Underpin-nings of Species Diversity PLoS ONE 5(7) e11554

Andreacuten T Bjoumlrck S Andreacuten S Conley D Zilleacuten L amp Anjar J 2011 The Development of the Baltic Sea Basin during the Last 130 ka In Harff J Bjoumlrck S amp Hoth P (eds) The Baltic Sea basin Part of the series Central and Eastern European Development Studies (CEEDES) Berlin-Heidelberg Springer-Verlag 75-97

ArcGIS Desktop 2016 How Topo to Raster Works Avail-able at httpdesktoparcgiscomenarcmap103tools3d-analyst-toolboxhow-topo-to-raster-workshtm [Last access 2012017]

Argyriou A V Sarris A amp Teeuw R M 2016 Using geoinformatics and geomorphometrics to quantify the geodiversity of Crete Greece International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 51 47ndash59

Bax N Williamson A Aguero M Gonzalez E amp Geeves W 2003 Marine invasive alien species a threat to global biodiversity Marine Policy 27 (4) 313ndash323

Beaman R J amp Harris P T 2003 Seafloor morphology and acoustic facies on the George V Landshelf Deep Sea Research II 50 1343ndash1355

Beaman R J amp Harris P T 2007 Geophysical variables as predictors of megabenthos assemblages from the northern Great Barrier Reef Australia In Todd B J amp Greene H G (eds) Mapping the Seafloor for Habitat Characterization Geological Association of Canada Special Paper 47 241ndash257

Beier P amp Brost B 2010 Use of Land Facets to Plan for Climate Change Conserving the Arenas Not the Ac-tors Conservation Biology 24 701ndash710

Benito-Calvo A Peacuterez-Gonzaacutelez A Magri O amp Meza P 2009 Assessing regional geodiversity the Iberian Peninsula Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 34 1433ndash1445

Bjoumlrck S 1995 A review of the history of the Baltic Sea 130ndash80 ka BP Quaternary International 27 19ndash40

Bonsdorff E 2006 Zoobenthic diversity-gradients in the Baltic Sea Continuous post-glacial succession in a stressed ecosystem Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 330 383ndash391

Breilin O Kotilainen A Nenonen K amp Raumlsaumlnen M 2005 The unique moraine morphology stratotypes and ongoing geological processes at the Kvarken Ar-chipelago on the land uplift area in the western coast of Finland In Ojala A E K (ed) Quaternary stud-ies in the northern and Arctic regions of Finland proceedings of the workshop organized within the Finnish National Committee for Quaternary Research (INQUA) Kilpisjaumlrvi Biological Station Finland Janu-ary 13-14th 2005 Geological Survey of Finland Special Paper 40 97ndash111

Breilin O Kotilainen A Nenonen K Virransalo P Ojalainen J amp Steacuten C-G 2004 Geology of the Kvarken Archipelago An appendix (appendix 1) to the application for nomination of the Kvarken Archipela-go to the World Heritage list 47 p Available at httptupagtkfijulkaisuerikoisjulkaisuej_044pdf [Last access 1112016]

Brown C J Sameoto J A amp Smith S J 2012 Multiple methods maps and management applications Pur-pose made seafloor maps in support of ocean manage-ment Journal of Sea Research 72 1ndash13

Brown C J Smith S J Lawton P amp Anderson J T 2011 Benthic habitat mapping A review of pro-gress towards improved understanding of the spatial ecology of the seafloor using acoustic techniques Es-tuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 92 502ndash520

Buhl-Mortensen L Buhl Mortensen P Dolan M F J Dannheim J Bellec V amp Holte B 2012 Habitat complexity and bottom fauna composition at different scales on the continental shelf and slope of Northern Norway Hydrobiologia 685 191ndash219

Burek C V amp Prosser C D 2008 The history of geo-conservation an introduction Geological Society London Special Publications 300 1-5

Burek C V Ellis N V Evans D H Hart M B amp Larwood J G 2013 Marine geoconservation in the United Kingdom Proceedings of the Geologistsrsquo As-sociation 124 581ndash592

35


Burnett M R August P V Brown Jr J H amp Killing-beck K T 1998 The Influence of Geomorphological Heterogeneity on Biodiversity I A Patch-Scale Per-spective Conservation Biology 12 (2) 363ndash370

Buyantuyev A amp Wu J 2007 Effects of thematic reso-lution on landscape pattern analysis Landscape Ecol 22 7ndash13

Church J A Clark PU Cazenave A Gregory J M Jevrejeva S Levermann A Merrifield M A Milne G A Nerem R S Nunn P D Payne A J Pfeffer W T Stammer D amp Unnikrishnan A S 2013 Sea Level Change In Stocker T F Qin D Plattner G-K Tignor M Allen S K Boschung J Nauels A Xia Y Bex V amp Midgley P M (eds) Climate Change 2013 The Physical Science Basis Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth As-sessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Cambridge New York Cambridge University Press 1137-1216

Chust G Galparsoro I Borja A Franco J amp Uriarte A 2008 Coastal and estuarine habitat mapping us-ing LIDAR height and intensity and multi-spectral imagery Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 78 (4) 633-643

Clark P U amp Mix A C 2002 Ice sheets and sea level of the Last Glacial Maximum Quaternary Science Re-views 21 (1ndash3) 1ndash7

Clark P U Dyke A S Shakun J D Carlson A E Clark J Wohlfarth B Mitrovica J X Hostetler S W amp McCabe A M 2009 The Last Glacial Maximum Science 325 (5941) 710ndash714

Clarke K R 1993 Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure Australian Journal of Ecology 18 117ndash143

Clarke K Somerfield P amp Gorley R 2008 Testing of null hypotheses in exploratory community analyses similarity profiles and biotandashenvironment linkage J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 366 56ndash69

Cogan C B Todd B J Lawton P amp Noji T T 2009 The role of marine habitat mapping in ecosystem-based management ICES Journal of Marine Science 66 2033ndash2042

Coggan R Populus J White J Sheehan K Fitzpat-rick F amp Piel S (eds) 2007 Review of Standards and Protocols for Seabed Habitat Mapping MESH Available at httpwwwemodnet-seabedhabitatseudefaultaspxpage=1442 [Last access 1112016]

Collie J S Adamowicz W L V Beck M W Craig B Essington T E Fluharty D Rice J amp Sanchirico J N 2013 Marine spatial planning in practice Estuar CoastShelf Sci 117 1ndash11

Connor D W Allen J H Golding N Howell KL Lieberknecht L M Northern K O amp Reker J B 2004 The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland Version 0405 In JNCC 2015 The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland Version 1503 Available at jnccdefragovukMarineHabitat-Classification [Last access 1122017]

Connor D W Gillilland P M Golding N Robinson P Todd D amp Verling E 2006 UK Sea Map The Mapping of Seabed and Water Column Features of UK Seas Joint Nature Conservation Committee Peter-borough 104 p

Costanza R drsquoArge R de Groot R Farberk S Gras-so M Hannon B Limburg K Naeem S OrsquoNeill R V Paruelo J Raskin R G Sutton P amp van den Belt M 1997 The value of the worldrsquos ecosystem ser-vices and natural capital Nature 387 253ndash260

Coughlan M Wheeler A J Dorschel B Lordan C Boer W van Gaever P de Haas H amp Moumlrz T

2015 Record of anthropogenic impact on the Western Irish Sea mud belt Anthropocene 9 56ndash69

Crowder L amp Norse E 2008 Essential ecological in-sights for marine ecosystem-based management and marine spatial planning Marine Policy 32(5) 772ndash778

Davies C E Moss D amp Hill M O 2004 The EUNIS Habitat Classification Revised 2004 European Envi-ronment Agency 307 p

Day J 2002 Zoning lessons from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Ocean and Coastal Management 45 139ndash56

de Forges B R Koslow J A amp Poore G C B 2000 Di-versity and endemism of the benthic seamount fauna in the southwest Pacific Nature 405 944ndash947

de Groot S J 1984 The impact of bottom trawling on benthic fauna of the North Sea Ocean Management 9 (3) 177ndash190

Diesing M Coggan R amp Vanstaen K 2009 Widespread rocky reef occurrence in the central English Channel and the implications for predictive habitat mapping Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 83 647ndash658

Doney S C Ruckelshaus M Duffy J E Barry J P Chan F English C A Galindo H M Grebmei-er J M Hollowed A B Knowlton N Polovina J Rabalais N N Sydeman W J amp Talley L D 2012 Climate Change Impacts on Marine Ecosystems Annual Review of Marine Science 4 11ndash37

Douvere F 2008 The importance of marine spatial plan-ning in advancing ecosystem-based sea use manage-ment Marine Policy 32 (5) 762ndash771

Dowdeswell J A Canals M Jakobsson M Todd B J Dowdeswell E K amp Hogan K A (eds) 2016 Atlas of Submarine Glacial landforms Modern Quaternary and Ancient London Geological Society Memoirs 46 618 p

Dufour A Gadallah F Wagner H H Guisan A amp Buttler A 2006 Plant species richness and envi-ronmental heterogeneity in a mountain landscape effects of variability and spatial configuration Eco-graphy 29 573ndash584

Ehler C amp Douvere F 2009 Marine Spatial Planning a step-by-step approach toward ecosystem-based man-agement Intergovernmental Oceanographic Com-mission and Man and the Biosphere Programme IOC Manual and Guides No 53 ICAM Dossier No 6 Paris UNESCO

Ekman M 1996 A consistent map of the postglacial up-lift of Fennoscandia Terra Nova 8 158ndash165

EMODnet Bathymetry Consortium 2016 EMODnet Digital Bathymetry (DTM) EMODnet Bathymetry httpdoiorg1012770c7b53704-999d-4721-b1a3-04ec60c87238 Available at httpportalemodnet-bathymetryeu [Last download November 2016]

EMODnet Geology 2016 EMODnet Thematic Lot ndeg2 Ge-ology EMODnet Phase 2 ndash Draft Final Report Report-ing Period 16102013 ndash 14102016 Date 22082016 Available at httpswebgateeceuropaeumaritime-forumennode3946 [Last access 2012017]

Engkvist R Malm T amp Tobiasson S 2000 Density dependent grazing effects of the isopod Idotea baltica Pallas on Fucus vesiculosus L in the Baltic Sea Aquat Ecol 34 253ndash260

Erikstad L Bakkestuen V Bekkby T amp Halvorsen R 2013 Impact of Scale and Quality of Digital terrain models on Predictability of Seabed Terrain Types Ma-rine Geodesy 36 (1) 2ndash21

European Environmental Agency 2013 EEA Coastline for analysis Available at httpwwweeaeuropaeuda-ta-and-mapsdataeea-coastline-for-analysis [Last download 2013]

36


European Commission 2012 Blue Growth Opportunities for marine and maritime sustainable growth Com-munication from the Commission to the European Parliament the Council the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions COM 494 Available at httpeur-lexeuropaeulegal-contentENALLuri=CELEX3A52012DC0494 [Last access 1122017]

European Commission 2013 The Interpretation Manual of European Union Habitats - EUR28 Available at httpeceuropaeuenvironmentnaturelegislationhabitatsdirectivedocsInt_Manual_EU28pdf [Last access 1122017]

European Commission 2014 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament the Coun-cil the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Innovation in the Blue Economy realising the potential of our seas and oceans for jobs and growth Brussels 1352014 COM 254 Available at httpeur-lexeuropaeulegal-con-tentENTXTPDFuri=COM2014254REV1ampfrom=EN [Last access 1122017]

European Parliament 2008 Directive 200856EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework) Available at http eur-lexeuropaeulegal-contentENTXTuri= CELEX3A32008L0056 [Last access 1122017]

Evans I S 2012 Geomorphometry and landform map-ping What is a landform Geomorphology 137 (1) 94ndash106

Flannery E amp Przeslawski R 2015 Comparison of sam-pling methods to assess benthic marine biodiversity Are spatial and ecological relationships consistent among sampling gear Record 201507 Geoscience Australia Canberra 54 p

Foley M M Halpern B S Micheli F Armsby M H Caldwell M R Crain C M Prahler E Rohr N Sivas D Beck M W Carr M H Crowder L B Duffy J E Hacker S D McLeod K L Palumbi S R Peterson C J Regan H M Ruckelshaus M H Sandifer P A amp Steneck R S 2010 Guiding eco-logical principles for marine spatial planning Marine Policy 34 (5) 955ndash966

Fonselius S 1996 Vaumlsterhavets Och Oumlstersjoumlns Oceano-grafiNorrkoumlping SMHI 200 p

Foster-Smith B Coltman N amp Fitzpatrick F 2007 How good is my map The MESH approach to confi-dence assessment In Foster-Smith B Connor D amp Davies J (eds) MESH Guide What Is Habitat Mapping Last saved 22082007 Available at httpwwwemodnet-seabedhabitatseudefaultaspxpage=1900 [Last access 1222017]

Galparsoro I Borja A Legorburu I Hernaacutendez C Chust G Liria P amp Uriarte A 2010 Morphologi-cal characteristics of the Basque continental shelf (Bay of Biscay northern Spain) their implications for in-tegrated coastal zone management Geomorphology 118 314ndash329

Gill J L Blois J Benito B Dobrowski S Hunter Jr M L amp McGuire J 2015 A 25-million-year perspec-tive on coarse-filter strategies for conserving naturersquos stage Conservation Biology 29 (3) 640ndash648

Glenn N F Streutker D R Chadwick D J Thackray G D amp Dorsch S J 2006 Analysis of LiDAR-derived topographic information for characterizing and dif-ferentiating landslide morphology and activity Geo-morphology 73 (1ndash2) 131ndash148

Gordon J E Barron H F Hansom J D amp Thomas M F 2012 Engaging with geodiversity ndash why it matters Proceedings of the Geologistsrsquo Association 123 1ndash6

Granouml O Roto M amp Laurila L 1999 Environment and land use in the shore zone of the coast of Finland Publicationes Instituti Geographici Universitatis Turkuensis 160 76 p

Gray J S 1997 Marine biodiversity patterns threats and conservation needs Biodiversity and Conserva-tion 6 153ndash175

Gray M 2004 Geodiversity Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature Wiley Chichester 448 p

Gray M 2005 Geodiversity and geoconservation what why and how The George Wright Forum 22 4ndash12

Gray M 2011 Other nature geodiversity and geosystem services Environmental Conservation 38 271ndash274

Gray M Gordon J E amp Brown E J 2013 Geodiversity and the ecosystem approach the contribution of geo-science in delivering integrated environmental man-agement Proceedings of the Geologistsrsquo Association 124 (4) 659ndash673

Greene H G Bizzarro J J OrsquoConnell V M amp Brylin-sky C K 2007 Construction of digital potential ma-rine benthic habitat maps using a coded classification scheme and its applications In Todd B J amp Greene H G (eds) Mapping the Seafloor for Habitat Charac-terization Geological Association of Canada Special Paper 47 141ndash155

Greene H G OrsquoConnell V M amp Brylinsky C K 2011 Tectonic and glacial related seafloor geomorphology as possible demersal shelf rockfish habitat surrogates ndashExamples along the Alaskan convergent transform plate boundary Continental Shelf Research 31 (2) 39ndash53

Greene H G Yoklavich M M Starr RM OrsquoConnell V M Wakefield W W amp Sullivan D E 1999 A classification scheme for deep seafloor habitats Ocenaologica Acta 22 663ndash678

Greenwood S L Clason C C Mikko H Nyberg J Peterson G amp Smith C A 2015 Integrated use of LiDAR and multibeam bathymetry reveals onset of ice streaming in the northern Bothnian Sea GFF 137 (4) 284ndash292

Grinsted A 2015 Projected Change ndash Sea level In The BACC II Author Team Second Assessment of Climate Change for the Baltic Sea Basin Regional Climate Studies 253ndash263

Grohmann C H Smith M J amp Riccomini C 2011 Multiscale analysis of topographic surface roughness in the Midland valley Scotland IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 49 1200ndash1213

Haumlkkinen A amp Aringker K 1991 Kotkan Pyhtaumlaumln ja Vehka-lahden merenpohjan maalajikerrostumat Summary Quaternary seafloor deposits offshore from Kotka Pyhtaumlauml and Vehkalahti Geological Survey of Finland Report of Investigation 109 30 p

Halpern B S Frazier M Potapenko J Casey K S Koenig K Longo C Lowndes J S Rockwood R C Selig E R Selkoe K A amp Walbridge S 2015 Spatial and temporal changes in cumulative human impacts on the worldrsquos ocean Nature Communica-tions 6 p 7615

Halpern B S Walbridge S Selkoe K A Kappeli C V Micheli F DrsquoArgosa C Bruno J F Casey K S Ebert C Fox H E Fujita R Heinemann D Lenihan H S Madin E M P Perry M T Selig E R Spalding M Steneck R amp Watson R 2008 A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems Science 319 948ndash952

Handley S J Willis T J Cole R G Bradley A Cair-ney D J Brown S N amp Carter M E 2014 The importance of benchmarking habitat structure and composition for understanding the extent of fishing impacts in soft sediment ecosystems Journal of Sea Research 86 58ndash68

37


Haumlnninen J Vuorinen I Helminen H Kirkkala T amp Lehtilauml K 2000 Trends and gradients in nutrient concentrations and loading in the Archipelago Sea Northern Baltic in 1970-1997 Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 50 153ndash171

Haumlnninen J Toivonen R Vahteri P Vuorinen I amp Helminen H 2007 Environmental Factors Shaping the Littoral Biodiversity in the Finnish Archipelago northern Baltic and the Value of Low Biodiversity SEILI Archipelago Research Institute Publications 4 19 p

Haumlrme M 1961 On the fault lines in Finland Bulletin de la Commission Geacuteologique de Finlande 196 437ndash444

Harris P T 2012 Surrogacy In Harris P T amp Baker E K (eds) Seafloor Geomorphology as Benthic Habi-tat GeoHAB Atlas of Seafloor Geomorphic Features and Benthic Habitats 2012 Elsevier 93-108

Harris P T amp Baker E K (eds) 2012 Seafloor Geomor-phology as Benthic Habitat GeoHAB Atlas of Sea-floor Geomorphic Features and Benthic Habitats 2012 Elsevier 900 p

Harris P T amp Whiteway T 2009 High seas marine protected areas Benthic environmental conservation priorities from a GIS analysis of global ocean biophys-ical data Ocean amp Coastal Management 52 22ndash38

Harris P T Heap A D Whiteway T amp Post A 2008 Application of biophysical information to support Australiarsquos representative marine protected area pro-gram Ocean and Coastal Management 51 701ndash711

Harris P T Macmillan-Lawler M Ruppc J amp Baker E K 2014 Geomorphology of the oceans Marine Geology 352 4ndash24

Hart M H 1978 The evolution of the atmosphere of the Earth Icarus 33 23ndash39

Hart M 1979 Habitable zones about main sequence stars Icarus 37 351ndash357

Haumlyreacuten E 1900 Laumlngszonerna i Ekenaumls skaumlrgaringrd Geo-grafiska foumlreningens tidsskrift 12 222-234

HELCOM 2007 HELCOM Lists of Threatened andor De-clining Species and Biotopeshabitats in the Baltic Sea Area Baltic Sea Environmental Proceedings No 113 18 p

HELCOM 2013a HELCOM HUB Technical report on the HELCOM Underwater Biotope and habitat classifica-tion Baltic Sea Environmental Proceedings No 139 96 p

HELCOM 2013b HELCOM Subbasins 2013 Available at httpmapshelcomfiwebsitemapserviceindexhtml [Download December 2016]

Helle I A Jolma amp Venesjaumlrvi R 2016 Species and habitats in danger estimating the relative risk posed by oil spills in the northern Baltic Sea Ecosphere 7 (5) e01344

Hjort J amp Luoto M 2010 Geodiversity of high-latitude landscapes in northern Finland Geomorphology 115 (1ndash2) 109ndash116

Hjort J Heikkinen R K amp Luoto M 2012 Inclusion of explicit measures of geodiversity improve biodiversity models in a boreal landscape Biodiversity and Con-servation 21 3487ndash3506

Huang Z Brooke B P amp Harris P T 2011 A new ap-proach to mapping marine benthic habitats using physical environmental data Continental Shelf Re-search 31 (2) 4ndash16

Hughes A L C Gyllencreutz R Lohne Oslash S Man-gerud J amp Svendsen J I 2016 The last Eurasian ice sheets ndash a chronological database and time-slice re-construction DATED-1 Boreas 45 1ndash45

Hughes Clarke J E Mayer L A amp Wells D E 1996 Shallow-water imaging multibeam sonars a new tool for investigating seafloor processes in the coastal

zone and on the continental shelf Marine Geophysical Researches 18 607ndash629

Hunter M L Jacobson L amp Webb T 1988 Paleo-ecology and the Coarse-Filter Approach to Main-taining Biological Diversity Conservation Biology 2 375ndash385

Hutri K-L Heinsalu A Kotilainen A T amp Ojala A E K 2007 Dating early Holocene palaeoseismic event(s) in the Gulf of Bothnia the Baltic Sea Boreas 36 56ndash64

Hyttinen O Kotilainen A amp Salonen V 2011 Acous-tic evidence of a Baltic Ice lake drainage debrite in the northern Baltic Sea Marine Geology 284 139ndash148

Inger R Attrill M J Bearhop S Broderick A C James Grecian W Hodgson D J Mills C Sheehan E Votier S C Witt M J amp Godley B J 2009 Marine renewable energy potential benefits to biodiversity An urgent call for research Journal of Applied Ecology 46 1145ndash1153

Jaatinen S 1960 Geografiska regioner Geographical re-gions Map 15 In Atlas oumlver Skaumlrgaringrds-Finland Nor-denskioumlld samf i Finland Helsinki

Jackson J B C Kirby M X Berger W H Bjorndal KA Botsford L W Bourque B J Bradbury R H Cooke R Erlandson J Estes J A Hughes T P Kidwell S Lange C B Lenihan H S Pandolfi J M Peterson C H Steneck R S Tegner M J amp Warner R R 2001 Historical Overfishing and the Recent Collapse of Coastal Ecosystems Science 27 629ndash637

Jakobsson M Gyllencreutz R Mayer L A Dow-deswell J A Canals M Todd B J Dowdeswell E K Hogan K A amp Larter R D 2016 Mapping submarine glacial landforms using acoustic methods Geological Society London Memoirs 46 17ndash40

Jelinski D E amp Wu J 1996 The modifiable areal unit problem and implications for landscape ecology Landscape Ecology 11 129ndash140

Jerosch K Kuhn G Krajnik I Scharf F K amp Dor-schel B 2016 A geomorphological seabed classifica-tion for the Weddell Sea Antarctica Marine Geophys-ical Research 37 (2) 127ndash141

Josenhans H W amp Zevenhuizen J 1990 Dynamics of the Laurentide ice sheet in Hudson Bay Canada Marine Geology 92 1ndash26

Kakkuri J 2012 Fennoscandian land uplift Past present and future In Haapala I (ed) From the Earthrsquos core to outer space Dordrecht Springer 127-136

Kaskela A Babin A Gogoberidze G Kotilainen A Neevin I Orlova M Ronkainen M Rousi H Ryabchuk D Zhamoida V amp Sergeev A 2013 Ba-thymetry of the Eastern Gulf of Finland TOPCONS project report 6 p (unpublished)

Kaskela A Kotilainen A Ryabchuk D Zhamoida V Sergeev A amp Neevin I 2014 Marine Geological Maps on a scale of 1500 000 of the Eastern Gulf of Finland TOPCONS project (unpublished)

Kasting J F Whitmire D P amp Reynolds R T 1993 Habitable zones around main sequence stars Icarus 101 (1) 108ndash128

Kautsky H Kautsky L Kautsky N Kautsky U amp Lindblad C 1992 Studies on the Fucus vesiculosus community in the Baltic Sea Acta Phytogeogr Suec 78 33ndash48

Kelleher G 1999 Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas IUCN Gland Switzerland and Cambridge UK

Koistinen T Klein V Koppelmaa H Korsman K Lahtinen R Nironen M Puura V Saltykova T Tikhomirov S amp Yanovskiy A 1996 Paleoprotero-zoic Svecofennian orogenic belt in the surroundings of the Gulf of Finland In Koistinen T (ed) Explanation to the Map of Precambrian Basement of the Gulf of

38


Finland and Surrounding Area 1 1 000 000 Geological Survey of Finland Special Paper 21 21ndash57

Koistinen T Stephens M B Bogatchev V Norgulen Oslash Wennestroumln M amp Korhonen J 2001 Geological Map of the Fennoscandian Shield Scale 1 2 000 000 Geological Surveys of Finland Norway and Sweden and the North-West Department of Natural Resources of Russia

Kohonen T amp Winterhalter B 1999 Sediment erosion and deposition in the western part of the Gulf of Fin-land Baltica 12 53ndash56

Korpinen S Meidinger M amp Laamanen M 2013 Cu-mulative impacts on seabed habitats An indicator for assessments of good environmental status Marine Pollution Bulletin 74 (1) 311ndash319

Korvenpaumlauml T von Numers M amp Hinneri S 2003 A mesoscale analysis of floristic patterns in the south-west Finnish Archipelago Journal of Biogeography 30 1019ndash1031

Kostylev V E Erlandsson J Ming M Y amp Williams G A 2005 The relative importance of habitat com-plexity and surface area in assessing biodiversity fractal application on rocky shores Ecological Com-plexity 2 272ndash286

Kostylev V E Todd B J Fader G B J Courtney R C Cameron G D M amp Pickrill R A 2001 Ben-thic habitat mapping on the Scotian Shelf based on multibeam bathymetry surficial geology and sea floor photographs Marine Ecology Progress Series 219 121ndash137

Kotilainen A T amp Hutri K-L 2004 Submarine Holo-cene sedimentary disturbances in the Olkiluoto area of the Gulf of Bothnia Baltic Sea a case of postgla-cial palaeoseismicity Quaternary Science Reviews 23 1125ndash1135

Kotilainen A T amp Kaskela A M 2017 Comparison of airborne LiDAR and shipboard acoustic data in com-plex shallow water environments Filling in the white ribbon zone Marine Geology 385 250ndash259

Kotilainen A T Kaskela A M Baumlck S amp Leinikki J 2012 Submarine De Geer moraines in the Kvarken Ar-chipelago the Baltic Sea In P T Harris amp Baker E D (eds) Seafloor Geomorphology as Benthic Habitat GeoHab Atlas of Seafloor Geomorphic Features and Benthic Habitats Amsterdam Elsevier 289-298

Kotilainen A Vallius H amp Ryabchuk D 2007 Seafloor anoxia and modern laminated sediments in coastal basins of the eastern Gulf of Finland Baltic Sea Geo-logical Survey of Finland Special Papers 45 49ndash62

Kymenlaakson Liitto 2014 Kymenlaakson maakun-takaava Kauppa- ja merialue Kaavaselostus (in Finnish) Available at httpwwwkymenlaaksofiimagesLiitteetMAAKUNTAKAAVAMaakuntakaava-kartat_ja_selosteetKauppa_ja_meri_kaavaselostuspdf

LaFrance M King J W Oakley B amp Pratt S 2014 A comparison of top-down and bottom-up approaches to benthic habitat mapping to inform offshore wind ener-gy development Continental Shelf Research 83 24ndash44

Laine A 2003 Distribution of softndashbottom macrofauna in the deep open Baltic Sea in relation to environmen-tal variability Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 57 (1ndash2) 87ndash97

Laine A O Andersin A-B Leiniouml S amp Zuur A-F 2007 Stratification-induced hypoxia as a structuring factor of macrozoobenthos in the open Gulf of Finland (Baltic Sea) Journal of Sea Research 57 (1) 65ndash77

Lambeck K Rouby H Purcell A Sun Y amp Sam-bridge M 2014 Sea level and global ice volumes from the Last Glacial Maximum to the Holocene PNAS 111 15296ndash15303

Last P R Lyne V D Williams A Davies C R Butler A J amp Yearsley G K 2010 A Hierarchical framework for classifying seabed biodiversity with application to planning and managing Australiarsquos marine biological resources Biological Conservation 143 1675ndash1686

Lecours V Dolan M F Micallef A amp Lucieer V 2016 A review of marine geomorphometry the quantita-tive study of the seafloor Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 20 3207ndash3244

Leppaumlranta M amp Myrberg K 2009 Physical Oceanogra-phy of the Baltic Sea Springer UK 378 p

Levin P S Fogarty M J Murawski S A amp Fluharty D 2009 Integrated Ecosystem Assessments Devel-oping the Scientific Basis for Ecosystem-Based Man-agement of the Ocean PLoS Biol 7 (1) e1000014

Li H 2006 The impacts and implications of the legal framework for sea use planning and management in China Ocean and Coastal Management 49 717ndash26

Long R D Charles A amp Stephenson R L 2015 Key principles of marine ecosystem-based management Marine Policy 57 53ndash60

Lotze H K Lenihan H S Bourque B J Bradbury R H Cooke R G Kay M C Kidwell S M Kirby M X Peterson C H amp Jackson J B C 2006 Deple-tion degradation and recovery potential of estuaries and coastal seas Science 312 1806ndash1809

Lukkari K Leivuori M Vallius H amp Kotilainen A 2009 The chemical character and burial of phospho-rus in shallow coastal sediments in the northeastern Baltic Sea Biogeochemistry 94 141ndash162

Lundblad E Wright D J Miller J Larkin E M Rinehart R Battista T Anderson S M Naar D F amp Donahue B T 2006 A benthic terrain classifi-cation scheme for American Samoa Marine Geodesy 29 (2) 89ndash111

Madden C J amp Grossman D H 2007 A framework for a coastalmarine ecological classification standard (CMECS) In Todd B J amp Greene G (eds) Mapping the Seafloor for Habitat Characterisation St Johnrsquos Geological Association of Canada 185ndash210

Madden C Goodin K Allee R Cicchetti G Moses C Finkbeiner M amp Bamford D 2009 Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard Silver Spring Arlington NOAA and Nature Serve 107 p

Mangerud J Eystein J amp Landvik J Y 1996 Late Ce-nozoic history of the Scandinavian and Barents Sea ice sheets Global and Planetary Change 12 11ndash26

Manosso F-C amp Nobreda de M T 2016 Calculation of Geodiversity from Landscape Units of the Cadeado Range Region in Paranaacute Brazil Geoheritage 8 189ndash 199

McArthur M A Brooke B P Przeslawski R Ryan D A Lucieer VL Nichol S McCallum A W Mellin C Cresswell I D amp Radke L C 2010 On the use of abiotic surrogates to describe marine benthic biodiver-sity Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 88 (1) 21ndash32

McKean J amp Roering J 2004 Objective landslide detec-tion and surface morphology mapping using high-resolution airborne laser altimetry Geomorphology 57 (3ndash4) 331ndash351

Meiner A 2010 Integrated maritime policy for the Euro-pean Unionmdashconsolidating coastal and marine infor-mation to support maritime spatial planning J Coast Conserv 14 1ndash11

Meiner A 2013 Spatial data management priorities for assessment of Europersquos coasts and seas J Coast Con-serv 17 271ndash277

Melelli L 2014 Geodiversity a new quantitative index for natural protected areas enhancement GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites Year VII 1 (13) 27ndash37

39


Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 Ecosystems and Human Well-being Synthesis Island Press Washington DC 155 p

Ministry for the Environment amp Statistics New Zealand 2016 New Zealandrsquos Environmental Reporting Series Our marine environment 2016 Ministry for the Envi-ronment and Statistics New Zealand

Molnar J L Gamboa R L Revenga C amp Spalding M D 2008 Assessing the global threat of invasive species to marine biodiversity Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6 485ndash492

Mortensen P B Buhl-Mortensen L Dolan M Dan-nheim J amp Kroumlger K 2009a Megafaunal diversity associated with marine landscapes of northern Nor-way a preliminary assessment Norwegian Journal of Geology 89 163ndash171

Mortensen P B Dolan M amp Buhl-Mortensen L 2009b Prediction of benthic biotopes on a Norwegian offshore bank using a combination of multivariate analysis and GIS classification ICES Journal of Marine Science 66 2026ndash2032

Myrberg K Leppaumlranta M amp Kuosa H 2006 Itaumlmeren fysiikka tila ja tulevaisuus Yliopistopaino Kustannus Helsinki University Press 202 p

Nichols W F Killingbeck K T amp August PV 1998 The Influence of Geomorphological Heterogeneity on Biodiversity II A Landscape Perspective Conserva-tion Biology 12 (2) 371ndash379

Niemelauml P Tolvanen H Roumlnkauml M Kellomaumlki S Krug J Schurgers G Lehikoinen E amp Kalliola R 2015 Environmental ImpactsmdashCoastal Ecosystems Birds and Forests In The BACC II Author Team Sec-ond Assessment of Climate Change for the Baltic Sea Basin Regional Climate Studies 291ndash306

Nuorteva J amp Kankaanpaumlauml H T 2016 Relocation of soft mud deposits An example from the Archipelago Sea northern Baltic Sea Marine Geology 380 148ndash162

OrsquoBrien K Haumlnninen K Kanerva T Metsaumlrinne L amp Vuorinen I 2003 Macrozoobenthic zonation in re-lation to major environmental factors across the Ar-chipelago Sea northern Baltic Sea Boreal Env Res 8 159ndash170

Ojaveer H amp Kalejs M 2008 On ecosystem-based re-gions in the Baltic Sea Journal of Marine Systems 74 672ndash685

Olenin S amp Daunys D 2004 Coastal typology based on benthic biotope and community data The Lithuanian case study Coastline Reports 4 65ndash83

Parks K E amp Mulligan M 2010 On the relationship be-tween a resource based measure of geodiversity and broad scale biodiversity patterns Biodiversity and Conservation 19 2751ndash2766

Pellitero R Gonzaacutelez-Amuchastegui M J Ruiz-Flantildeo P amp Serrano E 2011 Geodiversity and geomorphosite assessment applied to a natural protected area the Ebro and Rudroacuten Gorges Natural Park (Spain) Geo-heritage 3 163ndash174

Pellitero R Manosso F C amp Serrano E 2015 Mid- and large-scale geodiversity calculation in Fuentes Carrio-nas (NW Spain) and Serra do Cadeado (Paranaacute Brazil) methodology and application for land management Geografiska Annaler Series A Physical Geography 97 219ndash235

Pereira D I Pereira P Brilha J amp Santos L 2013 Geodiversity Assessment of Paranaacute State (Brazil) An Innovative Approach Environmental Management 52 541ndash552

Picard K Brooke B Tran M Siwabessy J Spinoc-cia M amp Sullivan J 2016 Seabed environments of the remote southeastern Indian Ocean in the search area for Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 ndash remnants

of Gondwana mass wasting spreading ridges and vol-canoes Paper Number 1560 35th IGC 278ndash492016 Cape Town South Africa Available on line httpswwwamericangeosciencesorgsitesdefaultfilesirg156pdf

Pike R J Evans I S amp Hengl T 2008 Geomorphom-etry a Brief Guide In Hengl T amp Reuter H I (eds) Geomorphometry Geomorphometry Concepts Soft-ware Applications Developments in Soil Science vol 33 Elsevier 1ndash28

Pirot J Y Meynell P J amp Elder D 2000 Ecosystem Management Lessons from around the world A guide for development and conservation practitioners IUCN Gland Switzerland and Cambridge UK 129 p

Pitkaumlnen H Lehtoranta J amp Raumlike A 2001 Internal nutrient fluxes counteract decreases in external load the case of the estuarial eastern Gulf of Finland Baltic Sea Ambio 30 195ndash201

Post A L 2008 The application of physical surrogates to predict the distribution of marine benthic organisms Ocean amp Coastal Management 51 (2) 161ndash179

Post A L Beaman R J OrsquoBrien P E Eleacuteaume M amp Riddle M J 2011 Community structure and benthic habitats across the George V Shelf East Antarctica Trends through space and time DeepndashSea Research II 58 (1ndash2) 105ndash118

Punt M J Groeneveld R A van Ierland E C amp Stel J H 2009 Spatial planning of offshore wind farms A windfall to marine environmental protection Eco-logical Economics 69 (1) 93ndash103

Puro H 2015 Betydelsen av miljoumlvariabler foumlr undervat-tenshabitat och utvaumlrdering av betydelsen av antropo-gen belastning i Oumlstra Finska viken Unpublished MSc Thesis Aringbo Akademi University

Reijonen A 2004 Vedenalaisten moreenimuodostum-ien monimuotoisuus Merenkurkun Saaristossa Un-published MSc Thesis University of Helsinki Depart-ment of geology 228 p (in Finnish)

Reijonen A Noumljd A Rousi H amp Kotilainen A 2008 Marine landscapes and benthic habitats in the Archi-pelago Sea (the Baltic Sea) ndash a case study BALANCE Interim Report No 31 53 p

Reineck H E amp Singh I B 1980 Depositional Sedi-mentary Environments with Reference to Terrige-nous Clastics Springer-Verlag Berlin 549 p

Rinne H 2014 Macroalgae across environmental gradients tools for managing rocky coastal areas of the northern Baltic Sea Environmental and Marine Biology Department of Biosciences Aringbo Akademi University 56 p (dissertation)

Roff J C amp Taylor M E 2000 National frameworks for marine conservationmdasha hierarchical geophysical approach Aquatic Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 10 209ndash223

Roff J C Taylor M E amp Laughren J 2003 Geophysi-cal approaches to the classification delineation and monitoring of marine habitats and their communities Aquatic Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 13 77ndash90

Rousi H Peltonen H Mattila J Baumlck S amp Bonsdorff E 2011 Impacts of physical environmental charac-teristics on the distribution of benthic fauna in the Northern Baltic Sea Boreal Env Res 16 521ndash533

Ruckelshaus M Klinger T Knowlton N amp DeMaster D P 2008 Marine ecosystem-based management in

practice Scientific and governance challenges Bio-Science 58 53ndash63

Sandstroumlm M Scharin H amp Soumlderqvist T 2000 Sea-side recreation in the Stockholm archipelago travel patterns and costs Beijer Discussion paper 129 20 p

Sandwell D T Muumlller R D Smith W H F Garcia E amp Francis R 2014 New global marine gravity model

40


from CryoSat-2 and Jason-1 reveals buried tectonic structure Science 346 65ndash67

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 2004 The Ecosystem Approach CBD Guidelines Montreal Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 49 p

Seifert T Tauber F amp Kayser B 2001 A high resolu-tion spherical grid topography of the Baltic Sea In Baltic Sea Science Congress 2001 Past Present and Future - a Joint Venture Abstract Volume - 2nd edi-tion Stockholm Stockholm Marine Research Centre Stockholm University

Serrano E amp Ruiz-Flantildeo P 2007 Geodiversity a theo-retical and applied concept Geographica Helvetica 62 140ndash147

Serrano E Ruiz-Flantildeo P amp Arroyo P 2009 Geodiver-sity assessment in a rural landscape Tiermes-Carace-na area (Soria Spain) Mem Descr Carta Geol Ital 86 171ndash178

Shaw J Todd B J amp Li M Z 2014 Geologic insights from multibeam bathymetry and seascape maps of the Bay of Fundy Canada Continental Shelf Research 31 (2) 54ndash68

Shucksmith R Gray L Kelly C amp Tweddle J F 2014 Regional marine spatial planning ndash The data collection and mapping process Marine Policy 50 1ndash9

Shumchenia E J amp King J W 2010 Comparison of methods for integrating biological and physical data for marine habitat mapping and classification Conti-nental Shelf Research 30 (16) 1717ndash1729

Silva J de P Rodrigues C amp Pereira D I 2015 Map-ping and Analysis of Geodiversity Indices in the Xingu River Basin Amazonia Brazil Geoheritage 1ndash14

Smith M W 2014 Roughness in the Earth Sciences Earth-Science Reviews 136 202ndash225

Snickars M Gullstroumlm M Sundblad G Bergstroumlm U Downie A-L Lindegarth M amp Mattila J 2014 Speciesndashenvironment relationships and potential for distribution modelling in coastal waters Journal of Sea Research 85 116ndash125

Spalding M D Fox H E Allen G R Davidson N Ferdana Z A Finlayson M amp Halpern B S et al 2007 Marine ecoregions of the world a bioregionali-zation of coastal and shelf areas BioScience 57 573ndash583

Stamoulis K A amp Delevaux J M S 2015 Data require-ments and tools to operationalize marine spatial plan-ning in the United States Ocean amp Coastal Manage-ment 116 214ndash223

Staveley T A B Perry D Lindborg R amp Gullstroumlm M 2016 Seascape structure and complexity influence temperate seagrass fish assemblage composition Ecography 39 001ndash011

Stein A Gerstner K amp Kreft H 2014 Environmental heterogeneity as a universal driver of species richness across taxa biomes and spatial scales Ecology Letters 17 866ndash880

Stevenson A 2012 The European marine observation and data network ndash geological data Baltica 25 (1) 87ndash90

Stroeven A P Haumlttestrand C Kleman J Heyman J Fabel D Fredin O Goodfellow B W Harbor J M Jansen J D Olsen L Caffee M W Fink D Lundqvist J Rosqvist G C Stroumlmberg B amp Jans-son K N 2016 Deglaciation of Fennoscandia Qua-ternary Science Reviews 147 91ndash121

Suominen T 2015 Spatiotemporal Features of Coastal Waters in Southwest Finland Turun yliopiston julkai-suja - Annales universitatis Turkuensis Sarja - ser A II osa - tom 305 Biologica - Geographica ndash Geologica 44 p (dissertation)

Suominen T Tolvanen H amp Kalliola R 2010 Geo-graphical persistence of surface-layer water proper-ties in the Archipelago Sea SW Finland Fennia 188 (2) 179ndash196

Svendsen J I Alexanderson H Astakhov V I Demidov I Dowdeswell J A Funder S Gataul-lin V Henriksen M Hjort C Houmark-Nielsen M Hubberten H W Ingoacutelfsson Oacute Jakobsson M Kjaeligr K H Larsen E Lokrantz H Lunkka J P Lysaring A Mangerud J Matiouchkov A Murray A Moumlller P Niessen F Nikolskaya O Polyak L Saarnisto M Siegert C Siegert M J Spielhagen R F amp Stein R 2004 Late Quaternary ice sheet his-tory of northern Eurasia Quaternary Environments of the Eurasian North (QUEEN) Quaternary Science Re-views 23 1229ndash1271

Tews J Brose U Grimm V Tielboumlrger K Wich-mann MC Schwager M amp Jeltsch F 2004 Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneitydi-versity the importance of keystone structures Journal of Biogeography 31 79ndash92

Todd B J amp Kostylev V E 2011 Surficial geology and benthic habitat of the German Bank seabed Scotian Shelf Canada Continental Shelf Research 31 54ndash68

Tukiainen H Bailey J J Field R Kangas K amp Hjort J 2016 Combining geodiversity with climate and to-pography to account for threatened species richness Conservation Biology 00 1ndash12

Tulloch V J Possingham H P Jupiter S D Roelf-sema C Tulloch A I T amp Klein C J 2013 Incor-porating uncertainty associated with habitat data in marine reserve design Biological Conservation 162 41ndash51

Tuominen H V Aarnisalo J amp Soumlderholm B 1973 Tectonic patterns in the central Baltic shield Bulletin of the Geological Society of Finland 45 205ndash217

UNCSIDS 2014 United Nations Conference on Small Is-land Developing States Blue Economy Concept Paper Available at httpssustainabledevelopmentunorgcontentdocuments2978BEconceptpdf [Last access 2510 2016]

United Nations 1992 Convention on biological diversity Rio de Janeiro 29 p

Uścinowicz S Jegliński W Miotk-Szpiganowicz G Nowak J Pączek U Przezdziecki P Szefler K amp Poręba G 2014 Impact of sand extraction from the bottom of the southern Baltic Sea on the relief and sediments of the seabed Oceanologia 56 (4) 857ndash880

Vahteri P OrsquoBrien K amp Vuorinen I 2009 Zonation and spatial distribution of littoral fish communities from the southwestern Finnish coast (Archipelago and Bothnian Sea Northern Baltic Sea) Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 82 35ndash40

Vallius H 2006 Permanent seafloor anoxia in coastal basins of the northwestern Gulf of Finland Baltic Sea Ambio 35 (3) 105ndash108

Vallius H Zhamoida V Kotilainen A amp Ryabchuk D 2011 Seafloor Desertification ndash A Future Scenario for the Gulf of Finland (Chapter 17) In Harff J et al (eds) The Baltic Sea Basin Central and Eastern Euro-pean Development Studies (CEEDES) Berlin-Heidel-berg Springer-Verlag 365-372

van Lancker V van Heteren S Leth J Kupschus S Coggan R Mason C Monteys X Scott G Hardy D Glaves H amp Miles P 2013 Geo-Seas Pan-European infrastructure for management of ma-rine and ocean geological and geophysical data De-liverable 105 Standards for seabed habitat mapping (Part A Sediment) Standardisation and harmonisa-tion in seabed habitat mapping role and added value of geological data and information Part A Sediment

41


characterisation Available at httpwwwgeo-seaseucontentcontentaspmenu=0380000_000000 [Last access 1112016]

van Son T C Dolan M Gonzales-Mirelis G Thorsnes T Bjarnadoacutettir L R amp Buhl-Mortensen P 2015 Environmental Variability Index (EVI) ndash a MAREANO methods to study for guidance of sampling effort NGU report 2015027 54 p

Verfaillie E Degraer S Schelfaut K Willems W amp Van Lancker V 2009 A protocol for classifying eco-logically relevant marine zones a statistical approach Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 83 175ndash185

Viitasalo M Blenckner T Garingrdmark A Kaartokallio H Kautsky L Kuosa H Lindegren M Norkko A Olli K amp Wikner J 2015 Environmental Im-pactsmdashMarine Ecosystems In The BACC II Author Team Second Assessment of Climate Change for the Baltic Sea Basin Regional Climate Studies 363ndash380

Virtasalo J J Kohonen T Vuorinen I amp Huttula T 2005 Sea bottom anoxia in the Archipelago Sea northern Baltic Seamdashimplications for phosphorus remineralization at the sediment surface Marine Ge-ology 224 103ndash122

von Numers M amp van der Maarel E 1998 Plant distri-bution patterns and ecological gradients in the South-west Finnish archipelago Global Ecology and Bioge-ography Letters 7 421ndash440

WCED 1987 Report of the World Commission on Envi-ronment and Development General Assembly 6th Plenary meeting 11 December 1987 Available at httpwwwunorgdocumentsgares42ares42-187htm [Last access 1122017]

Weatherall P Marks K M Jakobsson M Schmitt T Tani S Arndt J E Rovere M Chayes D Ferrini V amp Wigley R 2015 A new digital bathymet-ric model of the worldrsquos oceans Earth and Space Sci-ence 2 331ndash345

Wei C-L Rowe G T Escobar-Briones E Boetius A amp Soltwedel T et al 2010 Global Patterns and Pre-dictions of Seafloor Biomass Using Random Forests PLoS ONE 5 (12) e15323

Weigel B Andersson H C Meier HE M Blenckner T Snickars M amp Bonsdorff E 2015 Long-term progression and drivers of coastal zoobenthos in a changing system Marine Ecology Progress Series 528 141ndash159

Wessel P amp Chandler M T 2011 The spatial and tem-poral distribution of marine geophysical surveys Acta Geophys 59 (1) 55ndash71

Whiteway T Heap A D Lucieer V Hinde A Rud-dick R amp Harris P T 2007 Seascapes of the Aus-tralia Margin and Adjacent Sea Floor Methodology and Results Geoscience Australia Record 200711

Wikstroumlm S amp Kautsky L 2007 Structure and diver-sity of invertebrate communities in the presence and absence of canopy-forming algae Fucus vesiculosus in the Baltic Sea Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 72 168ndash176

Williams A Althaus F Dunstan P K Poore G C B Bax N J Kloser R J amp McEnnulty F J 2010 Scales of habitat heterogeneity and megabenthos biodiver-sity on an extensive Australian continental margin (100ndash1100 m depths) Marine Ecology 31 (1) 222ndash236

Wilson M F J OrsquoConnell B Brown C Guinan J C amp Grehan A J 2007 Multiscale terrain analysis of multibeam bathymetry data for habitat mapping on the continental slope Marine Geodesy 30 3ndash35

Winterhalter B Flodeacuten T Ignatius H Axberg S amp Niemistouml L 1981 Geology of the Baltic Sea In Voip-io A (ed) The Baltic Sea 30 Elsevier Oceanography Series 1-122

Witze A 2014 Gravity map uncovers sea-floor surprises Nature News 2 October 2014

Wright D J amp Heyman W D 2008 Introduction to the Special Issue Marine and Coastal GIS for Geomor-phology Habitat Mapping and Marine Reserves Ma-rine Geodesy 31 (4) 223ndash230

Wright D J Pendleton M Boulware J Walbridge S Gerlt B Eslinger D Sampson D amp Hunt-ley E 2012 ArcGIS Benthic Terrain Modeler (BTM) v 30 Environmental Systems Research Institute NOAA Coastal Services Center Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management Available at at httpesriurlcom5754

Wuebbles D J 2012 Celebrating the ldquoBlue Marblerdquo Eos 93 (49) 509ndash520

Zajac R N Lewis R S Poppe L J Twichell D C Vozarik J amp DiGiacomo-Cohen M L 2003 Re-sponses of infaunal populations to benthoscape struc-ture and the potential importance of transition zones Limnology and Oceanography 48 829ndash842

Zajac R N Vozarik J M amp Gibbons B R 2013 Spatial and Temporal Patterns in Macrofaunal Diversity Com-ponents Relative to Sea Floor Landscape Structure Plos One 8 e65823

Zaucha J 2014 Sea basin maritime spatial planning A case study of the Baltic Sea region and Poland Marine Policy 50 34ndash45

All GTKrsquos publications online at hakkugtkfi

The realization of effective marine spatial planning often suffers from incomplete and scattered marine data over large areas However technological advances in statistical analysis and geographic information systems (GIS) have enabled the development of new applications to map the marine environment based on pre-existing spatial data This PhD thesis is comprised of a synopsis and four original papers that present a GIS-based approach to analyzing and characterizing the geological seabed environment of the Baltic Sea It combines scattered data to produce spatial representations of the Baltic Sea in terms of the seabed geomorphic features marine landscapes and geodiversity Additionally potential key habitats rocky reefs were extrapolated from the existing sources with good accuracy and ecological validity

The results deepen our understanding of the geological characteristics of the Baltic Sea and provide spatial information on the seabed for scientists marine spatial planners and managers The overall geological landscape of the Baltic Sea is characterized by plains and basins and other geomorphic features such as elevations and valleys are characteristic of certain sub-regions The seabed geodiversity generally increases from south to north and from the open sea to areas with a high shore density Differences in the geomorphic content and geodiversity of the Baltic sub-regions are due to the basement rock type glacial history and ongoing processes A high geodiversity and archipelago gradient might directly influence the benthic assemblages and biodiversity by providing a multitude of habitats and indirectly by channeling water movement The results emphasize that seabed geological features and geodiversity should be acknowledged in marine spatial planning because they have intrinsic value and they provide several abiotic ecosystem services among others




ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps

132 Scattere unharmonious data

14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

VK_Kaskela_VK_synopsiss41pdf

ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

Geological Survey of FinlandEspoo 2017

Seabed landscapes of the Baltic Sea

Geological characterization of the seabed environment with spatial analysis techniques

by

Anu KaskelaMarine Geology

Geological Survey of FinlandPO Box 96

FI-02151 Espoo Finland

ACADEMIC DISSERTATIONDepartment of Geosciences and Geography University of Helsinki

To be presented with the permission of the Faculty of Science of the University of Helsinki for public examination in in Aud XV

Main building of the University of Helsinki (Unioninkatu 34) on November 3rd 2017 at 12 noon

Unless otherwise indicated the figures have been prepared by the author of the publication








ABSTRACT











CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS 6












4 RESULTS 20



6 CONCLUSIONS 30

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 31

TERMINOLOGY 32

REFERENCES 35


6


ABBREVIATIONS













SSS Side scan sonar

7















8


1 INTRODUCTION




11 Blue Growth



9












131 Data gaps



10









14 Scale




11










12









153 Geodiversity



13
















14


2 STUDY AREA



21 Baltic Sea




15










16




23 Archipelago Sea






31 Spatial scale




32 Datasets





17






322 Bathymetry








18















DistinctFeatures




P I

P II

P IV



19








333 Geodiversity


20


4 RESULTS











21













22


5 DISCUSSION









23




52 Datasets







24









25








26



531 Archipelagos





27












28









29







30


6 CONCLUSIONS









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




31












TERMINOLOGY




32














33
















34






REFERENCES





















35



































36































37








































38




































39






































40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES








ABSTRACT











CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS 6












4 RESULTS 20



6 CONCLUSIONS 30

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 31

TERMINOLOGY 32

REFERENCES 35


6


ABBREVIATIONS













SSS Side scan sonar

7















8


1 INTRODUCTION




11 Blue Growth



9












131 Data gaps



10









14 Scale




11










12









153 Geodiversity



13
















14


2 STUDY AREA



21 Baltic Sea




15










16




23 Archipelago Sea






31 Spatial scale




32 Datasets





17






322 Bathymetry








18















DistinctFeatures




P I

P II

P IV



19








333 Geodiversity


20


4 RESULTS











21













22


5 DISCUSSION









23




52 Datasets







24









25








26



531 Archipelagos





27












28









29







30


6 CONCLUSIONS









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




31












TERMINOLOGY




32














33
















34






REFERENCES





















35



































36































37








































38




































39






































40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES






CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS 6












4 RESULTS 20



6 CONCLUSIONS 30

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 31

TERMINOLOGY 32

REFERENCES 35


6


ABBREVIATIONS













SSS Side scan sonar

7















8


1 INTRODUCTION




11 Blue Growth



9












131 Data gaps



10









14 Scale




11










12









153 Geodiversity



13
















14


2 STUDY AREA



21 Baltic Sea




15










16




23 Archipelago Sea






31 Spatial scale




32 Datasets





17






322 Bathymetry








18















DistinctFeatures




P I

P II

P IV



19








333 Geodiversity


20


4 RESULTS











21













22


5 DISCUSSION









23




52 Datasets







24









25








26



531 Archipelagos





27












28









29







30


6 CONCLUSIONS









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




31












TERMINOLOGY




32














33
















34






REFERENCES





















35



































36































37








































38




































39






































40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

6


ABBREVIATIONS













SSS Side scan sonar

7















8


1 INTRODUCTION




11 Blue Growth



9












131 Data gaps



10









14 Scale




11










12









153 Geodiversity



13
















14


2 STUDY AREA



21 Baltic Sea




15










16




23 Archipelago Sea






31 Spatial scale




32 Datasets





17






322 Bathymetry








18















DistinctFeatures




P I

P II

P IV



19








333 Geodiversity


20


4 RESULTS











21













22


5 DISCUSSION









23




52 Datasets







24









25








26



531 Archipelagos





27












28









29







30


6 CONCLUSIONS









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




31












TERMINOLOGY




32














33
















34






REFERENCES





















35



































36































37








































38




































39






































40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

7















8


1 INTRODUCTION




11 Blue Growth



9












131 Data gaps



10









14 Scale




11










12









153 Geodiversity



13
















14


2 STUDY AREA



21 Baltic Sea




15










16




23 Archipelago Sea






31 Spatial scale




32 Datasets





17






322 Bathymetry








18















DistinctFeatures




P I

P II

P IV



19








333 Geodiversity


20


4 RESULTS











21













22


5 DISCUSSION









23




52 Datasets







24









25








26



531 Archipelagos





27












28









29







30


6 CONCLUSIONS









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




31












TERMINOLOGY




32














33
















34






REFERENCES





















35



































36































37








































38




































39






































40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

8


1 INTRODUCTION




11 Blue Growth



9












131 Data gaps



10









14 Scale




11










12









153 Geodiversity



13
















14


2 STUDY AREA



21 Baltic Sea




15










16




23 Archipelago Sea






31 Spatial scale




32 Datasets





17






322 Bathymetry








18















DistinctFeatures




P I

P II

P IV



19








333 Geodiversity


20


4 RESULTS











21













22


5 DISCUSSION









23




52 Datasets







24









25








26



531 Archipelagos





27












28









29







30


6 CONCLUSIONS









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




31












TERMINOLOGY




32














33
















34






REFERENCES





















35



































36































37








































38




































39






































40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

9












131 Data gaps



10









14 Scale




11










12









153 Geodiversity



13
















14


2 STUDY AREA



21 Baltic Sea




15










16




23 Archipelago Sea






31 Spatial scale




32 Datasets





17






322 Bathymetry








18















DistinctFeatures




P I

P II

P IV



19








333 Geodiversity


20


4 RESULTS











21













22


5 DISCUSSION









23




52 Datasets







24









25








26



531 Archipelagos





27












28









29







30


6 CONCLUSIONS









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




31












TERMINOLOGY




32














33
















34






REFERENCES





















35



































36































37








































38




































39






































40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

10









14 Scale




11










12









153 Geodiversity



13
















14


2 STUDY AREA



21 Baltic Sea




15










16




23 Archipelago Sea






31 Spatial scale




32 Datasets





17






322 Bathymetry








18















DistinctFeatures




P I

P II

P IV



19








333 Geodiversity


20


4 RESULTS











21













22


5 DISCUSSION









23




52 Datasets







24









25








26



531 Archipelagos





27












28









29







30


6 CONCLUSIONS









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




31












TERMINOLOGY




32














33
















34






REFERENCES





















35



































36































37








































38




































39






































40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

11










12









153 Geodiversity



13
















14


2 STUDY AREA



21 Baltic Sea




15










16




23 Archipelago Sea






31 Spatial scale




32 Datasets





17






322 Bathymetry








18















DistinctFeatures




P I

P II

P IV



19








333 Geodiversity


20


4 RESULTS











21













22


5 DISCUSSION









23




52 Datasets







24









25








26



531 Archipelagos





27












28









29







30


6 CONCLUSIONS









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




31












TERMINOLOGY




32














33
















34






REFERENCES





















35



































36































37








































38




































39






































40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

12









153 Geodiversity



13
















14


2 STUDY AREA



21 Baltic Sea




15










16




23 Archipelago Sea






31 Spatial scale




32 Datasets





17






322 Bathymetry








18















DistinctFeatures




P I

P II

P IV



19








333 Geodiversity


20


4 RESULTS











21













22


5 DISCUSSION









23




52 Datasets







24









25








26



531 Archipelagos





27












28









29







30


6 CONCLUSIONS









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




31












TERMINOLOGY




32














33
















34






REFERENCES





















35



































36































37








































38




































39






































40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

13
















14


2 STUDY AREA



21 Baltic Sea




15










16




23 Archipelago Sea






31 Spatial scale




32 Datasets





17






322 Bathymetry








18















DistinctFeatures




P I

P II

P IV



19








333 Geodiversity


20


4 RESULTS











21













22


5 DISCUSSION









23




52 Datasets







24









25








26



531 Archipelagos





27












28









29







30


6 CONCLUSIONS









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




31












TERMINOLOGY




32














33
















34






REFERENCES





















35



































36































37








































38




































39






































40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

14


2 STUDY AREA



21 Baltic Sea




15










16




23 Archipelago Sea






31 Spatial scale




32 Datasets





17






322 Bathymetry








18















DistinctFeatures




P I

P II

P IV



19








333 Geodiversity


20


4 RESULTS











21













22


5 DISCUSSION









23




52 Datasets







24









25








26



531 Archipelagos





27












28









29







30


6 CONCLUSIONS









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




31












TERMINOLOGY




32














33
















34






REFERENCES





















35



































36































37








































38




































39






































40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

15










16




23 Archipelago Sea






31 Spatial scale




32 Datasets





17






322 Bathymetry








18















DistinctFeatures




P I

P II

P IV



19








333 Geodiversity


20


4 RESULTS











21













22


5 DISCUSSION









23




52 Datasets







24









25








26



531 Archipelagos





27












28









29







30


6 CONCLUSIONS









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




31












TERMINOLOGY




32














33
















34






REFERENCES





















35



































36































37








































38




































39






































40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

16




23 Archipelago Sea






31 Spatial scale




32 Datasets





17






322 Bathymetry








18















DistinctFeatures




P I

P II

P IV



19








333 Geodiversity


20


4 RESULTS











21













22


5 DISCUSSION









23




52 Datasets







24









25








26



531 Archipelagos





27












28









29







30


6 CONCLUSIONS









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




31












TERMINOLOGY




32














33
















34






REFERENCES





















35



































36































37








































38




































39






































40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

17






322 Bathymetry








18















DistinctFeatures




P I

P II

P IV



19








333 Geodiversity


20


4 RESULTS











21













22


5 DISCUSSION









23




52 Datasets







24









25








26



531 Archipelagos





27












28









29







30


6 CONCLUSIONS









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




31












TERMINOLOGY




32














33
















34






REFERENCES





















35



































36































37








































38




































39






































40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

18















DistinctFeatures




P I

P II

P IV



19








333 Geodiversity


20


4 RESULTS











21













22


5 DISCUSSION









23




52 Datasets







24









25








26



531 Archipelagos





27












28









29







30


6 CONCLUSIONS









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




31












TERMINOLOGY




32














33
















34






REFERENCES





















35



































36































37








































38




































39






































40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

19








333 Geodiversity


20


4 RESULTS











21













22


5 DISCUSSION









23




52 Datasets







24









25








26



531 Archipelagos





27












28









29







30


6 CONCLUSIONS









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




31












TERMINOLOGY




32














33
















34






REFERENCES





















35



































36































37








































38




































39






































40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

20


4 RESULTS











21













22


5 DISCUSSION









23




52 Datasets







24









25








26



531 Archipelagos





27












28









29







30


6 CONCLUSIONS









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




31












TERMINOLOGY




32














33
















34






REFERENCES





















35



































36































37








































38




































39






































40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

21













22


5 DISCUSSION









23




52 Datasets







24









25








26



531 Archipelagos





27












28









29







30


6 CONCLUSIONS









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




31












TERMINOLOGY




32














33
















34






REFERENCES





















35



































36































37








































38




































39






































40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

22


5 DISCUSSION









23




52 Datasets







24









25








26



531 Archipelagos





27












28









29







30


6 CONCLUSIONS









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




31












TERMINOLOGY




32














33
















34






REFERENCES





















35



































36































37








































38




































39






































40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

23




52 Datasets







24









25








26



531 Archipelagos





27












28









29







30


6 CONCLUSIONS









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




31












TERMINOLOGY




32














33
















34






REFERENCES





















35



































36































37








































38




































39






































40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

24









25








26



531 Archipelagos





27












28









29







30


6 CONCLUSIONS









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




31












TERMINOLOGY




32














33
















34






REFERENCES





















35



































36































37








































38




































39






































40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

25








26



531 Archipelagos





27












28









29







30


6 CONCLUSIONS









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




31












TERMINOLOGY




32














33
















34






REFERENCES





















35



































36































37








































38




































39






































40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

26



531 Archipelagos





27












28









29







30


6 CONCLUSIONS









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




31












TERMINOLOGY




32














33
















34






REFERENCES





















35



































36































37








































38




































39






































40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

27












28









29







30


6 CONCLUSIONS









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




31












TERMINOLOGY




32














33
















34






REFERENCES





















35



































36































37








































38




































39






































40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

28









29







30


6 CONCLUSIONS









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




31












TERMINOLOGY




32














33
















34






REFERENCES





















35



































36































37








































38




































39






































40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

29







30


6 CONCLUSIONS









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




31












TERMINOLOGY




32














33
















34






REFERENCES





















35



































36































37








































38




































39






































40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

30


6 CONCLUSIONS









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




31












TERMINOLOGY




32














33
















34






REFERENCES





















35



































36































37








































38




































39






































40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

31












TERMINOLOGY




32














33
















34






REFERENCES





















35



































36































37








































38




































39






































40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

32














33
















34






REFERENCES





















35



































36































37








































38




































39






































40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

33
















34






REFERENCES





















35



































36































37








































38




































39






































40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

34






REFERENCES





















35



































36































37








































38




































39






































40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

35



































36































37








































38




































39






































40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

36































37








































38




































39






































40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

37








































38




































39






































40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

38




































39






































40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

39






































40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

40


































41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

41































ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES







ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS



1 INTRODUCTION

11 Blue Growth



131 Data gaps


14 Scale




153 Geodiversity


2 STUDY AREA

21 Baltic Sea


23 Archipelago Sea


31 Spatial scale

32 Datasets


322 Bathymetry




333 Geodiversity

4 RESULTS

5 Discussion


52 Datasets


531 Archipelagos



6 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TERMINOLOGY

REFERENCES

seabed landscapes of the baltic sea: geological...

Documents